Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] About SWRL
martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Tue May 27 09:58:12 PDT 2008
It will. I guess I'd like to think of that type of rule as expressing a
constraint rather than a restriction but I suppose that distinction does
not make a lot of sense in OWL.
Thomas Russ wrote:
>On May 23, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Martin O'Connor wrote:
>>SWRL is a rule language, not a restriction language. This rule, for
>>example, will classify an OWL individual as a Prograde_orbit if it has
>>an hasInclination property value of less than 90.0. It does not
>>the value to be less than 90.0. OWL 2.0 may allow you to do this.
>What about also adding the following rule with an empty consequent?
> Prograde_orbit(?x) ^ hasInclination(?x, ?y) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?y,
>Won't that produce an inconsistency if violated?
>>Khadija Tahera wrote:
>>>Thank you all for help.
>>>I tried the hasValue restriction for equal value. Now I want to
>>>restrict using less or greater value.
>>>I wrote this rule:
>>>hasInclination(?x, ?y) ^ swrlb:lessThan(?y, 90.0) →
>>>I want any individual of /Prograde_orbit/ class will not take more
>>>than 90.0 in it's /hasInclination/ property. /hasInclination/ is a
>>>The above rule is not implementing the restriction. How can I do
>>>May be I have any misunderstanding.
>>>I am not really comfortable with Protege 4.
>>>Please reply me.
>protege-owl mailing list
>protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
More information about the protege-owl