Re: SWRL expression in a property instance?

From: ├ĚŠ║ (mayyam@is.pku.edu.cn)
Date: 02/15/05

  • Next message: Peter F. Patel-Schneider: "Re: SWRL expression in a property instance?"
    hello, all,
    
    sorry for bother you all, but, being a friendly reader, i have some points
    as
    follows:
    
    (1) i changed some syntax of the previous example, and then it is fed into
    Sesame -- an RDF database -- successfully! that is, the following codes are
    actually syntactically-valid RDFS :)
    
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <rdf:RDF
        xmlns:swrl=" http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrl#"
        xmlns:rdfs=" http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
        xmlns:owl=" http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
        xmlns:swrlImport=" http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.owl#"
        xmlns="http://a.com/ontology#"
        xmlns:swrlb=" http://www.w3.org/2003/11/swrlb#"
        xmlns:swrlbImport=" http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrlb.owl#"
        xmlns:rdf=" http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
        xmlns:ruleml=" http://www.w3.org/2003/11/ruleml#"
        xml:base="http://a.com/ontology">
      <owl:Ontology rdf:about="">
        <owl:imports rdf:resource="
    http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrlb.owl"/>
        <owl:imports rdf:resource="
    http://www.daml.org/rules/proposal/swrl.owl"/>
      </owl:Ontology>
      <swrl:Variable rdf:ID="user"/>
    <atomicProcess>
       <hasPrecondition>
         <ruleml:Imp>
           <ruleml:body>
             <!-- empty body -->
           </ruleml:body>
           <ruleml:head>
            <swrl:IndividualPropertyAtom>
              <swrl:propertyPredicate
                rdf:ID="hasCreditCardOfType"/>
              <swrl:argument1 rdf:resource="#user" />
              <swrl:argument2 rdf:ID="VISA" />
            </swrl:IndividualPropertyAtom>
           </ruleml:head>
         </ruleml:Imp>
       </hasPrecondition>
    </AtomicProcess>
    </rdf:RDF>
    
    (2) as Peter replied:
    
    If you want to write SWRL then you should have separate documents for OWL
    information and SWRL rules.
    If you want to embed SWRL in something else, then you should probably not
    use the RDF syntax.
    
    ??? why ??? !!! if it is true, why SWRL has been proposed??? a SWRL document
    should contain the OWL part and the rule part together, as we all expected!
    
    and Sesame actually recognized such SWRL documents, since we have tested one
    from Protege ontology library:
    http://protege.stanford.edu/plugins/owl/owl-library/family.swrl.owl,
    meanwhile added the recursive rules Def-hasDescendent, it works!!! we can
    draw
    out the conclusions of hasUncle, hasDescendent etc. from SWRL RDF triples,
    based on our coding :)
    
    so --- personally, i do not agree with the separation of the OWL part and
    the
    rule part in a SWRL document! because, it has actually worked sucessfully!
    
    Thank you very much!
    
    Best wishes,
    Jing
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 02/15/05 EST