W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > December 2005

Re: Question about SWRL semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:48:22 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20051205.124822.37157175.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: andrea@pasteur.fr
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org

Hmm, adding SPARQL into the mix is indeed adding a significant new piece of the
puzzle.  The SPARQL spec is still in flux, I believe, and some readings of it
may support the behaviour you are experiencing.

peter


From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea@pasteur.fr>
Subject: Re: Question about SWRL semantics
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:41:14 +0100

> Ok,
> I just forgot one point.
> I was testing it querying through SPARQL,
> I guess anyway SPARQL should se an "inffered set of relations", o that 
> is not an issue. Isn't it ?
> 
> The semantics you describe is the one I expected.
> 
> best,
> Andrea Splendiani
> 
> Il giorno 05/dic/05, alle 18:31, Peter F. Patel-Schneider ha scritto:
> 
> >
> > From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea@pasteur.fr>
> > Subject: Question about SWRL semantics
> > Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:15:14 +0100
> >
> >> Hi,
> >> I['m] asking this here but feel free to redirect me to some more 
> >> specific
> >> resources if it is the case.
> >>
> >> I was using SWRL rules in Protégé and I have noticed that SWRL does 
> >> not
> >> "view" the relations that can be inferred from OWL.
> >>
> >> Is this a feature of SWRL semantics ?
> >> Is is just undefined and "implementation specific" ?
> >> Is it due to the inability of the reasoner (Pellet) to infer too much
> >> about instances ?
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Andrea Splendiani
> >
> > If you have a KB (however this is formed) that includes both SWRL 
> > rules and OWL
> > axioms then a complete SWRL reasoner should "take note" of both the 
> > rules and
> > the axioms, as specified in the SWRL documentation.
> >
> > So, for example,
> >
> > 	Class(Student Person)
> > 	Class(Rock Immobile)
> > 	Individual(John type(Student))
> > 	Implies(Antecedent(Person(I-variable(x))) 
> > Consequent(Rock(I-variable(x))))
> >
> > entails
> >
> > 	Individual(John type(Immobile))
> >
> >
> > I do not know why you are not obtaining the results you expect, but it 
> > seems to
> > me that you are expecting the results that are provided by the SWRL 
> > semantics.
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> >
> >
> >
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 17:53:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:08 GMT