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] Doubt about the SWRL Tab

Martin O'Connor martin.oconnor at
Tue Apr 27 15:40:27 PDT 2010

The order of arguments in your atoms appears to be reversed.



Anthony Ramalho wrote:
> Hi all,
> First of all, I'm sorry because I'm new with Protege and don't have 
> much knowledge about Java and Programming.
> I'm using Protege 3.4.4. I installed the Jess reasoning and started 
> trying to create a SWRL rule to infer that an instante could have a 
> property.
> I defined a property "hasRange" connecting a sensor with a range 
> level. My intention is simulating a flow through my process. So, I 
> defined that a sensor has level "high" and wrote this SWRL rule:
> hasRange(High,Sensor1) -> hasRange(low,Sensor2)
> I thought that if I didn't define the range for my Sensor2, my 
> reasoning could infer that it was "low" or If I defined another range, 
> "normal" for example, it could change it to "low" or show me an error 
> message. But when I'm running the "Reasoning" options, I'm not having 
> any of these results, as it's ignoring my written rule.
> Does anyone know how to implement this? Or what am I doing wrong?
> Thanks in advance,
> Anthony
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> protege-owl at
> Instructions for unsubscribing:

More information about the protege-owl mailing list