Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] SWRL rule query
joetk at elec.uow.edu.au
Wed Jan 2 17:41:26 PST 2008
But I don't want a global maximum, I want a maximum for the given set
selected by the rest of the rule.
As it stands it looks like I can't use some property of the resultant set
(ie a maximum value) to further constrain that set. Is that correct?
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 06:47:14 +1100, Martin O'Connor
<martin.oconnor at stanford.edu> wrote:
> Query and inference are deliberately separated in SQWRL. OWL's open
> world assumption will prevent you from inferring the maximum of your
> sequence numbers because there may another number out there that is
> Joseph Thomas-Kerr wrote:
>> I want to be able to express the following rule:
>> avc:pps(?pps) ^ avc:id(?pps,?spsID)
>> ^ avc:sps(?sps) ^ avc:id(?sps,?spsID)
>> ^ avc:seqNo(?pps,?ppsSeqNo) ^ avc:seqNo(?sps,?spsSeqNo)
>> ^ swrlb:lessThan(?spsSeqNo,?ppsSeqNo)
>> ^ (?spsSeqNo = MAXIMUM(?spsSeqNo))
>> -> rdo:dependsOn(?pps,?sps)}
>> That is, I want to infer a relationship between a avc:pps and the
>> with the matching spsID that MOST RECENTLY precedes it. An example might
>> help. Given the following individuals
>> I want to infer that
>> and nothing else. sqwrl has a max function, but I don't think that this
>> will get me what I am after. I tried using this function in the
>> along with my inferred property, but it doesn't seem to work; query and
>> inference seem to have been deliberately separated.
>> I am not a logic expert; I suspect that this inference is nonmonotonic,
>> but I'm not certain.
>> can anyone provide some insight?
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
More information about the protege-owl