Hi :) This is my first time building an ontology and I have a small query.
I have a test ontology with one class: Human and two data properties: hasE
(int) and isHappy {“yes”,”no”}. I want to model the fact that if an
individual hasE > 5 then isHappy is “yes”. And I have two individuals: John
hasE 2 and Jane hasE 10.
Now if I write the following SWLR rule:
I get for both John and Jane isHappy “yes” which clearly shouldn’t be the
case (note that the DL query for human and hasE gives only Jane). However,
when I add another rule:
It correctly assigns Jane to isHappy “yes” and John isHappy “no”.
I want know why this is the case. It doesn’t make sense that I’d have to
exhaustively define all ranges if I want a statement to hold in a specific
range. Especially given the fact that I don't want to necessarily give a
statement about what happens if the value for hasE is not >5, so I am
dealing with a necessary but not sufficient condition. Because for the
ontology I am designing (the above-stated example is just a small subset for
testing purposes) this wouldn’t be feasible as I have a large number of
dataProperties and values.
I was expecting that I wouldn’t get an answer for John as it’s OWA but why
do I get the wrong “contradictory” assignment when I omit the second rule?
If this is supposed to happen for some reason, how can I overcome it?
Clearly what you observe does not match the content of your test ontology, which you describe in English. So, perhaps your test ontology contains something else, which you forgotten to include in your message.
That is why attaching a small OWL file would save a lot of time for you and for people who answer your question.
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2019 at 9:38 PM
> From: "aliaelbolock" <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email] > Subject: [protege-user] SWLR Data property inference problem
>
> Hi :) This is my first time building an ontology and I have a small query.
>
> I have a test ontology with one class: Human and two data properties: hasE
> (int) and isHappy {“yes”,”no”}. I want to model the fact that if an
> individual hasE > 5 then isHappy is “yes”. And I have two individuals: John
> hasE 2 and Jane hasE 10.
> Now if I write the following SWLR rule:
>
> Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> isHappy(?H,
> "Yes")
>
> I get for both John and Jane isHappy “yes” which clearly shouldn’t be the
> case (note that the DL query for human and hasE gives only Jane). However,
> when I add another rule:
>
> Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:lessThan(?val, 5) -> isHappy(?H, "No")
>
> It correctly assigns Jane to isHappy “yes” and John isHappy “no”.
> I want know why this is the case. It doesn’t make sense that I’d have to
> exhaustively define all ranges if I want a statement to hold in a specific
> range. Especially given the fact that I don't want to necessarily give a
> statement about what happens if the value for hasE is not >5, so I am
> dealing with a necessary but not sufficient condition. Because for the
> ontology I am designing (the above-stated example is just a small subset for
> testing purposes) this wouldn’t be feasible as I have a large number of
> dataProperties and values.
> I was expecting that I wouldn’t get an answer for John as it’s OWA but why
> do I get the wrong “contradictory” assignment when I omit the second rule?
>
> If this is supposed to happen for some reason, how can I overcome it?
>
> Thanks in advance :)
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/Protege-User-f4659818.html > _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [hidden email] > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user >
Thanks for sending your ontology. It seems to be working for me. I ran the reasoner and got the expected result (Yes for Jane No for John) and then I deleted the second rule for John (which I'm attaching) ran the reasoner again and again got the expected result: Yes for Jane no value for John.
Are you using the Pellet reasoner? That works best with SWRL. Are you using the latest (5.5) version of Protege?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:00 AM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael can you send the screen of expected result please.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for sending your ontology. It seems to be working for me. I ran the reasoner and got the expected result (Yes for Jane No for John) and then I deleted the second rule for John (which I'm attaching) ran the reasoner again and again got the expected result: Yes for Jane no value for John.
Are you using the Pellet reasoner? That works best with SWRL. Are you using the latest (5.5) version of Protege?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:00 AM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
I have a class right now so I have to go but I'll do that later this afternoon. A couple of other thoughts though: look at your ontology and see if the unexpected value for John is highlighted. If it's not highlighted then it means it was not set by the reasoner and may have been set accidentally by a user. If it is highlighted it should have a "?" next to it. You can click on that and get a trace to see see why the reasoner made the inference. Also, you can try using SQWRL on the one rule. In the SQWRL Tab write the rule:
Then run SQWRL from the SQWRL tab. This should create a printout in the SQWRL tab at the bottom with a line for each time the rule fired with the values for H and val. I'll make a screen print when I get home after my class this afternoon.
Cheers,
Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:48 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael can you send the screen of expected result please.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for sending your ontology. It seems to be working for me. I ran the reasoner and got the expected result (Yes for Jane No for John) and then I deleted the second rule for John (which I'm attaching) ran the reasoner again and again got the expected result: Yes for Jane no value for John.
Are you using the Pellet reasoner? That works best with SWRL. Are you using the latest (5.5) version of Protege?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:00 AM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:29 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have a class right now so I have to go but I'll do that later this afternoon. A couple of other thoughts though: look at your ontology and see if the unexpected value for John is highlighted. If it's not highlighted then it means it was not set by the reasoner and may have been set accidentally by a user. If it is highlighted it should have a "?" next to it. You can click on that and get a trace to see see why the reasoner made the inference. Also, you can try using SQWRL on the one rule. In the SQWRL Tab write the rule:
Then run SQWRL from the SQWRL tab. This should create a printout in the SQWRL tab at the bottom with a line for each time the rule fired with the values for H and val. I'll make a screen print when I get home after my class this afternoon.
Cheers,
Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:48 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael can you send the screen of expected result please.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for sending your ontology. It seems to be working for me. I ran the reasoner and got the expected result (Yes for Jane No for John) and then I deleted the second rule for John (which I'm attaching) ran the reasoner again and again got the expected result: Yes for Jane no value for John.
Are you using the Pellet reasoner? That works best with SWRL. Are you using the latest (5.5) version of Protege?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:00 AM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Here's a screen print from the ontology that I attached in my last message after running the Pellet reasoner. As you can see John has no value for isHappy. This is with the single SWRL rule:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 6:36 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Michael.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:29 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
I have a class right now so I have to go but I'll do that later this afternoon. A couple of other thoughts though: look at your ontology and see if the unexpected value for John is highlighted. If it's not highlighted then it means it was not set by the reasoner and may have been set accidentally by a user. If it is highlighted it should have a "?" next to it. You can click on that and get a trace to see see why the reasoner made the inference. Also, you can try using SQWRL on the one rule. In the SQWRL Tab write the rule:
Then run SQWRL from the SQWRL tab. This should create a printout in the SQWRL tab at the bottom with a line for each time the rule fired with the values for H and val. I'll make a screen print when I get home after my class this afternoon.
Cheers,
Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:48 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Michael can you send the screen of expected result please.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 2:42 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks for sending your ontology. It seems to be working for me. I ran the reasoner and got the expected result (Yes for Jane No for John) and then I deleted the second rule for John (which I'm attaching) ran the reasoner again and again got the expected result: Yes for Jane no value for John.
Are you using the Pellet reasoner? That works best with SWRL. Are you using the latest (5.5) version of Protege?
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:00 AM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
I tried running the query in SQWRL and it returns that only one row has been
executed for Jane.
However, when I run it from SWRL it now gives me: yes for Jane and no for
John although I am only running one rule. And when I click on the axiom
created for John, there are no explanations to show and it is not
highlighted. I tried to repeat the process and delete the axiom and rerun
and the same happens.
I think I must be doing something wrong but I am not sure what. I tried
Pellet and Pellet (incremental).
Correction: Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Great! I was in the middle of a message with alternate things to try. I've seen that every once in a while. Some times Protege gets in a weird state and you need to restart to get things working again. Glad it's working now.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Correction: Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a message with alternate things to try. I've seen that every once in a while. Some times Protege gets in a weird state and you need to restart to get things working again. Glad it's working now.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Correction: Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:07 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a message with alternate things to try. I've seen that every once in a while. Some times Protege gets in a weird state and you need to restart to get things working again. Glad it's working now.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]> wrote:
Correction: Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
What does this mean? Michael showed with his screenshot that for
John the fact (:isHappy true) was not inferred, which is correct.
There is no inferred fact to show for John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari
wrote:
But I ask the screen for inference of rules
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:07
AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at
10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a message
with alternate things to try. I've seen that every once
in a while. Some times Protege gets in a weird state and
you need to restart to get things working again. Glad
it's working now.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019
at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction: Upon
restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me
the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird
that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place.
But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR
Lab), USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 08:16 Lorenz Buehmann, <[hidden email]> wrote:
What does this mean? Michael showed with his screenshot that for
John the fact (:isHappy true) was not inferred, which is correct.
There is no inferred fact to show for John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari
wrote:
But I ask the screen for inference of rules
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:07
AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at
10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a message
with alternate things to try. I've seen that every once
in a while. Some times Protege gets in a weird state and
you need to restart to get things working again. Glad
it's working now.
On Mon, Nov 18, 2019
at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction: Upon
restarting the whole system and rerunning it gave me
the
same output as yours (no assignment for John). Weird
that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take place.
But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR
Lab), USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
It's still unclear which one you mean and why? The problem was
already solved.
Here is the SQWRL Tab with the SELECT query from Michael, the
result is in the bottom:
And now?
On 19.11.19 08:43, Dr. Sanju Tiwari
wrote:
I want to see rule tab
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 08:16
Lorenz Buehmann, <[hidden email]>
wrote:
What does this mean? Michael showed with his screenshot
that for John the fact (:isHappy true) was not inferred,
which is correct. There is no inferred fact to show for
John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
But I ask the screen for inference of rules
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019
at 8:07 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon, Nov 18,
2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a
message with alternate things to try. I've seen
that every once in a while. Some times Protege
gets in a weird state and you need to restart to
get things working again. Glad it's working now.
On Mon, Nov
18, 2019 at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction:
Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning
it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John).
Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take
place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred axioms but not like in your screen
When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
Is there any protege version problem?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:59 AM Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's still unclear which one you mean and why? The problem was
already solved.
Here is the SQWRL Tab with the SELECT query from Michael, the
result is in the bottom:
And now?
On 19.11.19 08:43, Dr. Sanju Tiwari
wrote:
I want to see rule tab
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 08:16
Lorenz Buehmann, <[hidden email]>
wrote:
What does this mean? Michael showed with his screenshot
that for John the fact (:isHappy true) was not inferred,
which is correct. There is no inferred fact to show for
John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
But I ask the screen for inference of rules
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019
at 8:07 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon, Nov 18,
2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle of a
message with alternate things to try. I've seen
that every once in a while. Some times Protege
gets in a weird state and you need to restart to
get things working again. Glad it's working now.
On Mon, Nov
18, 2019 at 1:01 PM aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction:
Upon restarting the whole system and rerunning
it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment for John).
Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule to take
place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Your first screenshot shows the SWRL Tab, and everything is fine
Jane :isHappy "yes"
John :isHappy "No"
I don't see any issues here.
In the SQWLR Tab you have to SQWRL **queries**, i.e. select
something in the conclusion of the rule. Look again at my
screenshot. I used the query from Michael
But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred
axioms but not like in your screen
When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
Is there any protege version problem?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:59
AM Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:
It's still unclear which one you mean and why? The
problem was already solved.
Here is the SQWRL Tab with the SELECT query from Michael,
the result is in the bottom:
And now?
On 19.11.19 08:43, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
I want to see rule tab
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019,
08:16 Lorenz Buehmann, <[hidden email]>
wrote:
What does this mean? Michael showed with his
screenshot that for John the fact (:isHappy true)
was not inferred, which is correct. There is no
inferred fact to show for John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
But I ask the screen for
inference of rules
On Tue, Nov
19, 2019 at 8:07 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon,
Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis
<[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle
of a message with alternate things to
try. I've seen that every once in a
while. Some times Protege gets in a
weird state and you need to restart to
get things working again. Glad it's
working now.
On
Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:01 PM
aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction:
Upon restarting the whole system and
rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment
for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule
to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help
again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia
Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence
Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain
Member IEEE
Member Machine
Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 10:14 AM Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
Your first screenshot shows the SWRL Tab, and everything is fine
Jane :isHappy "yes"
John :isHappy "No"
I don't see any issues here.
In the SQWLR Tab you have to SQWRL **queries**, i.e. select
something in the conclusion of the rule. Look again at my
screenshot. I used the query from Michael
But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred
axioms but not like in your screen
When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
Is there any protege version problem?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 8:59
AM Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]>
wrote:
It's still unclear which one you mean and why? The
problem was already solved.
Here is the SQWRL Tab with the SELECT query from Michael,
the result is in the bottom:
And now?
On 19.11.19 08:43, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
I want to see rule tab
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019,
08:16 Lorenz Buehmann, <[hidden email]>
wrote:
What does this mean? Michael showed with his
screenshot that for John the fact (:isHappy true)
was not inferred, which is correct. There is no
inferred fact to show for John.
On 19.11.19 08:08, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
But I ask the screen for
inference of rules
On Tue, Nov
19, 2019 at 8:07 AM Dr. Sanju Tiwari <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Thanks Michael
On Mon,
Nov 18, 2019 at 10:25 PM Michael DeBellis
<[hidden email]>
wrote:
Great! I was in the middle
of a message with alternate things to
try. I've seen that every once in a
while. Some times Protege gets in a
weird state and you need to restart to
get things working again. Glad it's
working now.
On
Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 1:01 PM
aliaelbolock <[hidden email]>
wrote:
Correction:
Upon restarting the whole system and
rerunning it gave me the
same output as yours (no assignment
for John). Weird that I have to close
Protege and restart for the new rule
to take place. But at least it works
now :) Thanks a lot for all the help
again.
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia
Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence
Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
--
Regards
Dr. Sanju Tiwari
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de
Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid,
Spain
Member IEEE
Member Machine
Intelligence Research
Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Ontology
Engineering Group Departamento
de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela
Técnica Superior de Ingenieros
Informáticos Universidad
Politécnica de Madrid, Spain
Member IEEE
Member
Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab),
USA
Ontology Engineering Group Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Informáticos Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Member IEEE
Member Machine Intelligence Research Labs(MIR Lab), USA
Locked
TestWithoutFalseRule.owl (15K) 
