Search Mailing List Archives
[protege-owl] SQWRL query help needed
martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Tue Oct 28 07:07:58 PDT 2008
So hasSugar is an object property? If so the individual name can be
used directly. cf. the language FAQ:
wine:Wine(?wine:x) ∧ wine:hasSugar(?wine:x, ?wine:Dry) →
Quoting Przemek W <teonacatl at gmail.com>:
> wine:Wine(?wine:x) ∧ wine:hasSugar(?wine:x, ?wine:y) ^ wine:Dry(?wine:y)→
> won't go green (I can't submit it), because it says that "wine:Dry" is an
> invalid atom. In ontology "Dry" is defined as an individual of the WineSugar
> class. Could that be a reason?
> This is why I tried to compare it as a String, using some of the Built-Ins
> for Strings.
> Martin O'Connor wrote:
>> Quoting Przemek W <teonacatl at tlen.pl>:
>>> Yes. I've realised that. But what should I use instead?
>> What about:
>> wine:Wine(?wine:x) ∧ wine:hasSugar(?wine:x, ?y) ^ wine:Dry(?y)→
>>> And btw I have another question: Can these queries return answers ONLY
>>> assertions? I've just realised that, when running the query it returns
>>> correct answers, if they were originaly defined in the Ontology. For
>>> there's just one kind of White Wine, and query's result is THAT ONE
>>> PARTICULAR wine(which is OK, i think?). But after running reasoner, there
>>> appear to be many more INFERRED White Wines(marked in hierarchy as blue).
>>> But query still returns THE SAME ONE white wine.
>> SQWRL does not currently return reasoner-inferred knowledge. I plan to
>> fix this shortcoming in the next few months.
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
>> Instructions for unsubscribing:
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the Protege - OWL mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at lists.stanford.edu
> Instructions for unsubscribing:
More information about the protege-owl