Re: Question about SWRL semantics

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 17:31:54 UTC