SWLR Data property inference problem

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

SWLR Data property inference problem

aliaelbolock
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Igor Toujilov-2
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
>
_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

aliaelbolock
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl>  
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Michael DeBellis-2
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:
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



--
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

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

TestWithoutFalseRule.owl (15K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
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:
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



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


--
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




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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Michael DeBellis-2
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:  

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> sqwrl:select(?H, ?val)

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:
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



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


--
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



_______________________________________________
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: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
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:  

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> sqwrl:select(?H, ?val)

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:
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



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


--
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



_______________________________________________
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


--
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




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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Michael DeBellis-2
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:

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> isHappy(?H, "Yes")

Jane has the value "Yes" for isHappy.  

SWRLJohn.PNG

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:  

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> sqwrl:select(?H, ?val)

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:
Test.owl <http://protege-project.136.n4.nabble.com/file/t377162/Test.owl
Dear Igor,

Yes of course. I am attaching the ontology now. Thanks a lot.



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


--
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



_______________________________________________
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


--
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



_______________________________________________
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: SWLR Data property inference problem

aliaelbolock
Dear Michael,

Thanks a lot for your help.

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).



--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

aliaelbolock
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.



--
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Michael DeBellis-2
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.



--
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

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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
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.



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


--
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




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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
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.



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


--
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





--
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




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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Lorenz Buehmann

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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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: SWLR Data property inference problem

Lorenz Buehmann

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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
Thanks Lorenz

But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred axioms but not like in your screen


image.png

When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
image.png

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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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


--
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




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

Re: SWLR Data property inference problem

Lorenz Buehmann

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

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> sqwrl:select(?H, ?val)

On 19.11.19 10:09, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
Thanks Lorenz

But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred axioms but not like in your screen


image.png

When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
image.png

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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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


--
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




_______________________________________________
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: SWLR Data property inference problem

sanju tiwari
Thanks Lorenz


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

Human(?H) ^ hasE(?H, ?val) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?val, 5) -> sqwrl:select(?H, ?val)

On 19.11.19 10:09, Dr. Sanju Tiwari wrote:
Thanks Lorenz

But As I am seeing in my screen it is showing in inferred axioms but not like in your screen


image.png

When I am running in SQWRL tab it is giving error like this
image.png

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.



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


--
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





--
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




_______________________________________________
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


--
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




_______________________________________________
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


--
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




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