Order of Rule execution: Reg

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Order of Rule execution: Reg

sharmi m
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

Jim McCusker
Each rule (including built-in) is idempotent, in that it always produces the same end state in the ontology graph given the same input. Further, OWL reasoning is monotonic, in that it only adds new axioms to the ontology graph, and can't take anything back. Order of execution is therefore not important from a end result perspective, although it can theoretically impact performance of the reasoner.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
James P. McCusker III, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

Lorenz Buehmann
In reply to this post by sharmi m

Since we are talking about a set of OWL axioms and a set of SWRL rules, I don't see any ordering, thus, your question remains unclear.


On 22.06.2017 17:05, Sharmi M wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

sharmi m
In reply to this post by Jim McCusker
Thank you for your response Mr.Jim

But let me clarify my doubts.

I think order of rule execution matters a lot in Prolog,

As SWRL is built upon OWL and due to ontology graph, did SWRL rule have the features(idempotent, monotonic...), explained by you.

But , actually speaking, Prolog or datalog rule base can be reused in semantic environment also(ontology querying..). Then what about such rules?

Can you kindly clarify pl?
-Sharmi


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jim McCusker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each rule (including built-in) is idempotent, in that it always produces the same end state in the ontology graph given the same input. Further, OWL reasoning is monotonic, in that it only adds new axioms to the ontology graph, and can't take anything back. Order of execution is therefore not important from a end result perspective, although it can theoretically impact performance of the reasoner.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
James P. McCusker III, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user



_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

Lorenz Buehmann
To be honest, it's not clear what you're asking.

Now you're asking about Prolog and Datalog, before it was SWRL.

And then, it's not clear why you are asking something like that here. Indeed, it's important to execute a particular rule A before another rule B if the result of A is the input of B.
But I don't understand what's the question now - this is the matter of optimization. In a trivial implementation you don't need to worry about it and simply execute all rules on the data until a fixpoint is reached, i.e. when no new data has been generated.

But now, what's your point? OWL is a modeling language defining a set of axioms. SWRL is a rule language defining a set of rules. Implementation of the inference engine is always a matter of performance

Thank you for your response Mr.Jim

But let me clarify my doubts.

I think order of rule execution matters a lot in Prolog,

As SWRL is built upon OWL and due to ontology graph, did SWRL rule have the features(idempotent, monotonic...), explained by you.

But , actually speaking, Prolog or datalog rule base can be reused in semantic environment also(ontology querying..). Then what about such rules?

Can you kindly clarify pl?
-Sharmi


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jim McCusker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each rule (including built-in) is idempotent, in that it always produces the same end state in the ontology graph given the same input. Further, OWL reasoning is monotonic, in that it only adds new axioms to the ontology graph, and can't take anything back. Order of execution is therefore not important from a end result perspective, although it can theoretically impact performance of the reasoner.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
James P. McCusker III, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user




_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
-- 
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

samsontu
In reply to this post by sharmi m
Prolog is a partially procedural and partially logic programming language, where the ordering of rules and predicates may give you different results. SWRL rules are logical axioms whose ordering doesn’t matter, except for possible optimizations. You can treat an OWL ontology as a RDF graph and use systems like SWI-Prolog [1] to query and manipulate RDF.

With best regards,
Samson

[1] http://www.swi-prolog.org/web/


On Jun 25, 2017, at 4:35 AM, Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you for your response Mr.Jim

But let me clarify my doubts.

I think order of rule execution matters a lot in Prolog,

As SWRL is built upon OWL and due to ontology graph, did SWRL rule have the features(idempotent, monotonic...), explained by you.

But , actually speaking, Prolog or datalog rule base can be reused in semantic environment also(ontology querying..). Then what about such rules?

Can you kindly clarify pl?
-Sharmi


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jim McCusker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each rule (including built-in) is idempotent, in that it always produces the same end state in the ontology graph given the same input. Further, OWL reasoning is monotonic, in that it only adds new axioms to the ontology graph, and can't take anything back. Order of execution is therefore not important from a end result perspective, although it can theoretically impact performance of the reasoner.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
James P. McCusker III, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Order of Rule execution: Reg

Igor Toujilov-2
In reply to this post by sharmi m
Hi Sharmi,
SWRL is based on Datalog, and entirely declarative. This means the results of the inference do not depend on the order of rule execution. Moreover the results of the inference do not depend on the order of atoms in a rule. This gives SWRL great advantages over procedural rule systems.
Cheers,
Igor
--
Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
On 25/06/2017, 19:47 Samson Tu <[hidden email]> wrote:
Prolog is a partially procedural and partially logic programming language, where the ordering of rules and predicates may give you different results. SWRL rules are logical axioms whose ordering doesn’t matter, except for possible optimizations. You can treat an OWL ontology as a RDF graph and use systems like SWI-Prolog [1] to query and manipulate RDF.

With best regards,
Samson

[1] http://www.swi-prolog.org/web/


On Jun 25, 2017, at 4:35 AM, Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you for your response Mr.Jim

But let me clarify my doubts.

I think order of rule execution matters a lot in Prolog,

As SWRL is built upon OWL and due to ontology graph, did SWRL rule have the features(idempotent, monotonic...), explained by you.

But , actually speaking, Prolog or datalog rule base can be reused in semantic environment also(ontology querying..). Then what about such rules?

Can you kindly clarify pl?
-Sharmi


On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Jim McCusker <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each rule (including built-in) is idempotent, in that it always produces the same end state in the ontology graph given the same input. Further, OWL reasoning is monotonic, in that it only adds new axioms to the ontology graph, and can't take anything back. Order of execution is therefore not important from a end result perspective, although it can theoretically impact performance of the reasoner.

Jim

On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:05 AM Sharmi M <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear All,

I think  Semantics of an OWL ontology is NOT affected by  the order in which SWRL rules  are implemented(using protege) in it.

What is the reason behind it?
Can you kindly clarify this point?

-Sharmi
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
--
James P. McCusker III, Ph.D.

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user


_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________ protege-user mailing list [hidden email] https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user