Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] if SWRL rules make difference in reasoning process?
james at howison.name
Wed Oct 22 09:36:12 PDT 2008
I think, and I could be wrong, that the Pellet built into Protege 3.4
does not reason with SWRL rules. I think the only way to do this in
Protege is via the SWRLJessTab.
Pellet outside of Protege 3.4, and, as far as I know, in Protege 4,
does use the SWRL rules, at least a decidable set-set, with a reduced
set of built-ins.
On 22 Oct 2008, at 12:15 PM, Przemek wrote:
> I am using Protege 3.4(built 506), along with the 'family' ontology.
> ontology has some SWRL rules defined, like:
> family:Person(?family:x) ∧
> family:hasParent(?family:x, ?family:y) ∧
> family:hasSister(?family:y, ?family:z)
> → family:hasAunt(?family:x, ?family:z)
> and a few similar ones. By default, they are all ticked (enabled).
> Now, when I run the reasoner(Pellet), it inferres the following:
> family.swrl.owl#Child) Moved from family:Person to family:Relative
> family.swrl.owl#Parent) Moved from family:Person to family:Relative
> family.swrl.owl#Sibling) Moved from family:Person to family:Relative
> But, when I disable the SWRL rules, and run the reasoner again, the
> output is
> completely the same.
> My questions are:
> Is it the reasoner's job to include these rules in reasoning
> process? Or maybe,
> is there a button for executing them somewhere? Or do they not make
> Am I missing something? :)
> Basicaly what I am trying to do, is to write a query which could
> somthing from defined assertions like:
> if (child(y) which hasFather(y,x) and fatherHasWife(x,z)) then
> [[hasFather(y,x) AND father(x) AND hasWife(x,z) AND wife(z)] =>
> (or any other. this is just an example)
> I am sorry for asking such questions, but I am realy trying to
> understand all
> this mechanism. So far, without any progress.
> 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