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 Bridge, Jess and Pellet working together

Martin O'Connor martin.oconnor at stanford.edu
Thu Feb 5 12:41:46 PST 2009


The interaction is not as coupled as you outlined. The SWRLTab inference 
mechanism and the Pellet inference mechanism know nothing about each 
other so identifying inconsistencies is purely an step-by-step manual 
user-guided process. Doing it via the API would be tricky.

If you are using core SWRL features (not custom built-ins or SQWRL) you 
can use Pellet directly to avoid these issues. It now has pretty much 
full SWRL support.

Martin

W.O.Wutzke wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have read in from [1] that the Pellet could be used to find inconsistences
>during the inference using the SWRL Bridge.
>
>How does it work?
>
>1 - Does Pellet work like a Truth Maintenence Mechanism and doesn´t let the
>SWRL-Bridge infer the facts in conflict? if yes, would be possible to
>"update" functional properties and simulate a non-monotonic behaviour?
>
>2 - or does Pellet just identify the inconcistencies after the inference? in
>this case I should able to find these facts in order to rectify the ontology
>and keep the last inferred values. Would it be possible with the Protégé
>API?
>
>Sorry if I missunderstood everything. 
>
>In fact, I am already having the problems as described in [1] because of the
>monotonic behaviour of OWL, but it was possible to correct it by software.
>But it still not being an elegant solution.
>
>Thanks in advance.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Wagner
>
>Hamburg - Germany 
>
>[1] -
>http://www.nabble.com/Issue-firing-SWRL-rules-from-java-application-to13822709.html#a13822709
>  
>




More information about the protege-owl mailing list