Re: Refinement :ORL for Congo

Evren Sirin wrote:

> Monika Solanki wrote:
>
>>
>> This is a refinement ( I think) where I have removed the 
>> sameIndividualAtom construct and defined classAtom for each variable
>>
>> Input Classes,
>>
>> <process:Input rdf:ID="AcctID"/>
>> <process:Input rdf:ID="Password"/>
>> <process:Input rdf:ID="CreditCardNumber"/>
>> <process:Input rdf:ID="ISBNNumber"/>
>>
>> In ORL, we have to define "Variable" to be used in Rules.
>>
>> <owl:Variable rdf:ID="AcctID"/>
>> <owl:Variable rdf:ID="Password"/>
>> <owl:Variable rdf:ID="CreditCardNumber"/>
>> <owl:Variable rdf:ID="ISBNNumber"/>
>> Now, we can define the rule as,
>>
>> <!-- here the namespace congoUserProfile, holds the definition of 
>> classes and properties pertaining to a user of Congo -->
>> <owl:Rule>
>>    <owl:antecedent rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>        <owl:classAtom>
>>            <owk:classPredicate rdf:about="&congoProcess;AccID">
>>            <owl:argument1 rdf:about="#AcctID" />
>>        </owl:classAtom>
>
>
> &congoProcess;AcctID was defined as an individual of type 
> process:Input. Using this individual in the classPredicate is not 
> correct. I think the main problem here is how to represent the value 
> of a parameter for the process. The rule is defined to say something 
> about the relation between the values of parameters.

I understand what you want to say is that the Variable AcctID cannot be 
an instance of &congoProcess;AcctID, since that is not a Class, but an 
individual of type Input. Is this correct?

The fact is, semantically,  the variables to the property predicate will 
actually need to be individual of type Input. Atleast this is what I 
understood from Peter's reply to my mail regarding this :

<owlr:Rule>
>   <owlr:antecedent rdf:parseType="Collection">
>     <owlr:classAtom>
>       <owlr:classPredicate rdf:about="&ulan;Artist"/>
>       <owlr:argument1 rdf:about="#_x" />
> 
> Does this mean that <owlr:Variable rdf:ID="_x"/> defines a variable with 
> an ID , "_x" and this variable is actually an instance  of Class, 
> "&ulan;Artist"

Not really.  You have to think of the RDF syntax as just syntax.

The first three lines do introduce (define) three variables.
The rule section creates a rule.  The antecedent of this rule is (roughly)
``whenever _s is a &ulan;Artist''.

So all I want to say is whenever the variable AcctID is 
&congoProcess;AccID, hence I have used it in that form.

Any further thoughts appreciated.

Monika