- From: Andrea Splendiani <andrea@pasteur.fr>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:41:14 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
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 17:41:32 UTC