Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] existentials and the OWLThing built-in [Re: Re: SWRL doubt: using rules to add new individuals? (Samson Tu)]
nmayorga at gmail.com
Thu Aug 30 01:44:28 PDT 2007
thanks for your answer!
Check to see whether Protege SWRL extension built-in "createOWLThing"
> satisfies your need. See
> The built-in is used on the antecedent side of the rule.
I've read the built-in description and I've got some more doubts left:
- first of all, I'd need the new individual to belong to a specific class,
not just OWLThing. Will it be possible either forcing the class or changing
it later (though still in the same rule)?
- I'm not sure whether using the built-in in the antecedent would be what I
needed, but I guess that, having all the variables instantiated, it should
be the same
- and, finally, the explanation in the wiki reads:
However, while not convenient, existential created in this way are
> theoretically safe. In contrast, existentials created using this built-in
> will be beyond the immediate reach of OWL classifiers. They should probably
> not be stored permanently in an OWL ontology.
with the first sentence referring to the existential restriction
owl:someValuesFrom for adding new individuals. Could you, please, explain
a) the existentials created by means of owl:someValuesFrom are not
and why the individuals created by using this built-in (createOWLThing)
b) out of the immediate reach of classifiers and
c) should probably not be stored permanently in the ontology?
Thanks a lot once again,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the protege-owl