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 stanford.edu
Tue Apr 27 15:40:27 PDT 2010


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

cf.  http://protege.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SWRLLanguageFAQ

Martin

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 lists.stanford.edu
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>   




More information about the protege-owl mailing list