Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[protege-owl] SWRL negation

Martin O'Connor martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Thu Jan 3 16:25:39 PST 2008


Rules 2 and 3 use classical negation semantics; rule 1 is trying to use 
negation as failure semantics. I would go to Wikipedia for a fairly good 
discussion of both types of negation.

Martin

Thusitha Mabotuwana wrote:

>Hello everyone
>I'm trying to understand the differences between the 3 different negation types
>mentioned in the wiki [1]:
>Person(?p) ^ ¬ hasCar(?p, ?c) -> CarlessPerson(?p) (9LB)
>Person(?p) ^ (hasCar = 0)(?p) -> CarlessPerson(?p) (9U1)
>(not Person)(?x) -> NonHuman(?x) (9TM)
>
>Why is it allowed to have the last 2 types while the 1st case is not supported?
>With regard to the 1st rule, the Wiki says "it is easy to see that the addition
>of a car to the ontology could invalidate this rule's conclusion", but isn't it
>the same even for the 2nd rule?
>
>Although the 2nd rule is there in the Wiki (9U1), the swrl tab doesn't seem to
>support this and turns red when you try to enter something like "(hasCar =
>0)(?p)". Is this the expected behavior?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>1. http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLLanguageFAQ#nidA3Q
>
>_______________________________________________
>protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
>Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
>
>  
>




More information about the protege-owl mailing list