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] re asener that support constraints

bassiee back_to_basic_69 at hotmail.com
Mon May 12 19:33:41 PDT 2008


Is the example I gave correct?
thx seba


Samson Tu wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The type of constraints that you want CAN BE formulated as SWRL rules 
> with empty heads, but it doesn't mean that its easy to use Jess 
> implementation of SWRL reasoning to check these constraints. The problem 
> I see is that constraint violations correspond to those bindings of the 
> variables in SWRL rules that satisfy some, but not all, of the 
> predicates. It's not enough to see which rules fire. You need to have 
> code that look at patterns of variable bindings and recognize a subset 
> of non-firing bindings as constraint violations.
> 
> In other words, the current Protege SWRLTab doesn't support the checking 
> of constraint violations that you want.
> 
> Samson
> 
> bassiee wrote:
>> hey martin,
>> if you say that the jess back end in the swrltab supports a constraint
>> with
>> an empty head
>> then I probably don't understand how constraints have to be interpreted.
>> So I give an example and if you could say it is correct or not (and what
>> I
>> should be) that would be great.
>> 
>> The example is very similar to what I want:
>> 2 Classes: Class1 and Class2
>> 2 properties: hasClass2a and hasClass2b both have domain Class1 and range
>> Class2
>> I want to say in the constraint: an individual of Class1 can have a
>> connection to Class2 via 'hasClass2a' and 'hasClass2b', but the
>> individuals
>> it connects to have to be different.
>> 
>> So it looks to me a SWRL constraint with an empty head:
>> Class1(?x) and Class1(?y) and sameAs(?x,?y) and hasClass2a(?x,?z) and
>> hasClass2b(?y,?a)
>> and sameAs(?z,?a) -->
>> 
>> Is this correct?
>> If it is why doesn't the reasoner react to any breach of the constraint.
>> thanks seba
>> 
>> 
>> Martin O'Connor wrote:
>>> The Jess back end does not support all OWL axioms when reasoning. cf.  
>>> http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLRuleEngineBridgeFAQ#nid6QL
>>>
>>> It does support sameAs, however.
>>>
>>> Pellet supports all OWL axioms when reasoning but does not fully  
>>> support SWRL yet, though it is pretty close and should ultimately have  
>>> the most comprehensive SWRL support. As far I as know, Fact++ does not  
>>> have SWRL support. RacerPro has very limited support for a SWRL-like  
>>> language. The JessTab knows nothing about SWRL.
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> Quoting bassiee <back_to_basic_69 at hotmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> hey,
>>>>
>>>> does jess reason constraints in the SWRLJessTab?
>>>> to be clear with a constraint I mean:
>>>> ClassA(?a) and hasproperty(?a,?b) and hasproperty(?a,?c) and
>>>> sameAs(?b,?c)
>>>> ->
>>>>
>>>> If not, with reasoner does?
>>>> pellet, racer pro, fact++, jess tab
>>>> --
> _______________________________________________
> 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 
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/reasener-that-support-constraints-tp17159182p17199920.html
Sent from the Protege - OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the protege-owl mailing list