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 interpretation problem

bassiee back_to_basic_69 at hotmail.com
Sat May 3 09:40:35 PDT 2008





Martin O'Connor wrote:
> 
> I guess I'm really not sure what you are trying  to do. Do you have a 
> concrete example? It seems to me that there is no way of preventing a 
> user defining an arbitrary set of properties that link instances of As 
> to Cs. Are you trying to say that no other properties exist that link As 
> to Cs or are you just trying to constrain the existing three properties?
> 
Yust to be clear, I forgot the '?' in my SWRL expresion, so it should be
something like this:
part1: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty1(?a1,?b1) and
hasproperty1(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) -> 
part2: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty2(?a1,?b1) and
hasproperty2(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) -> 
part3: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty1(?a1,?b1) and
hasproperty2(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) ->

The problem is that an object 'a1' of 'CLASSA' can have only ONE connection
to an object 'c1' of CLASSC (through B).
-An other object 'a2' of CLASSA can connect to the same object 'c1’ so no
restriction needed...(so not mentioned in the rules)
-But the object 'a1' can connect trough 'hasproperty1' with multiple objects
of CLASSB, let's say with 'b1' and 'b2' an so only one of those 2 objects
may connect trough 'hasproperty3' to CLASSC.
So here is a restriction needed.
I thought that with the rules below, that the situation where 2 properties
of CLASSB 'b1' and 'b2' who connect to the same object 'c1' can't occur
because the rule has an empty head and so is trivially false... 
Why 3 rules, to exclude all 3 possible ways where an object ‘a1’ can connect
to ‘c1’. 
Object ‘a1’ can connect to ‘b1’ through ‘hasproperty1’ and can connect to
‘b2’ through ‘hasproperty1’ OR
through ‘hasproperty2’ and through ‘hasproperty2’ OR
through ‘hasproperty1’ and through ‘hasproperty2’.
Am I missing something? 
Is there an other Rule language based on OWL that I can use for this?
Or other ways to restrict this?

Thanks seba.

bassiee wrote:
> 
> CLASS_A--hasproperty1--------------0..*-CLASS_B--hasproperty3-------------1..*-CLASS_C 
>       |_____hasproperty2____________0..*____| 
> 
> situation in text: 
> 3 CLASSESA,B,C and 3 hasproperties1,2,3 
> property1 and property2 connects objects of 'CLASS_A' with objects of
> 'CLASS_B' 
> and hasproperty3 connects objects of 'CLASS_B' with objects of 'CLASS_C' 
> 
> problem: 
> An 'objecta' of 'CLASS_A' connects with multiple objects of 'CLASS_B'
> trough 'hasproperty1' or trough 'hasproperty2', so now you have a list of
> objects of 'CLASS_B' witch 'objecta' is connected to. 
> For that list of object of 'CLASS_B' there can be only one connection to
> an 'objectc' of 'CLASS_C', 
> BUT 'objectc' can receive other connection from other lists of objects of
> 'CLASS_B'. 
> 
> (the heads are empty so the rules will be accepted as trivially false) 
> part1: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty1(?a1,?b1)
> and hasproperty1(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and
> hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) -> 
> part2: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty2(?a1,?b1)
> and hasproperty2(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and
> hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) -> 
> part3: A(?a1) and B(?b1) and B(?b2) and C(?c1) and hasproperty1(?a1,?b1)
> and hasproperty2(?a1,?b2) and hasproperty3(?b1,?c1) and
> hasproperty3(?b2,?c1) ->
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/SWRL-interpretation-problem-tp16783211p17036199.html
Sent from the Protege - OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the protege-owl mailing list