[protege-owl] [Fwd: Is it possible to express user preferencies through SWRL atoms?]

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

[protege-owl] [Fwd: Is it possible to express user preferencies through SWRL atoms?]

Paolo Bussotti


Hi everybody,
I would ask you some question: I am modeling a user profile trough a
profiling ontology that I import in another concept-free ontology (the
profile) purposing to create the profile as an individual  on the basis
of the classes and relations of the imported profiling ontology. Also
suppose I have a Domain Ontology  e.g. for tourism.
In several cases, e.g. "user preferences"  I often should  express  a  
relation between  the profiled user  and  a class in the Domain ontology
if the preference is generic,
e.g. :  user1(individual)  hasPreference Seaside (class in the domain
ontology).
I know that I may use an annotation property  but I would like to remain
within OWL DL and, what is most important, have these information
processed by a  reasoner  and generate inference.
I ask you if it is possible to express the same expression through
OWL-SWRL by using a class atom of Seaside with a variable:
e,g.   user1  hasPreference (Seaside(?x))  , an expression on which
reasoning could be carried out by a rule-based inference.
Is it possible/convenient?
In every case, which is the state-of-the-art for rule engines for  SWRL
expression in a OWL ontology?
Another question: which is the state-of -the-art ontology-aware query
language for OWL? I  typically use OWL-QL that relies on its own  JTP
problem solver, but I would like to query an OWL-KB also using a DL
reasoner as Pellet.   Please answer these questions (they are urgent).
I thank all of you.
  Paolo


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: [Fwd: Is it possible to express user preferencies through SWRL atoms?]

John Goodwin

You'll be wanting to read this:

http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values/

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
> Paolo Bussotti
> Sent: 21 June 2006 11:55
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [protege-owl] [Fwd: Is it possible to express user
> preferencies through SWRL atoms?]
>
>
>
.


This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.

Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ordnance Survey
Romsey Road
Southampton SO16 4GU
Tel: 023 8079 2000
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[protege-owl] Re: [Fwd: Is it possible to express user preferencies through SWRL atoms?]

Paolo Bussotti
Thank you John,
I've already read that  paper, but I was not so satisfied by these
solutions.
I mean, if  I could treat a preference as C(?x),  then if a swrl  engine
is on ,  each time  an individual is created for  the class C, this  
will be added to  the preference of the user (even if  it imay be a
closed-world reasoning).  But  I ignore if I can.
However, thanks  a lot for  helping
Paolo

John Goodwin wrote:

>You'll be wanting to read this:
>
>http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-classes-as-values/
>
>John
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [hidden email]
>>[mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
>>Paolo Bussotti
>>Sent: 21 June 2006 11:55
>>To: [hidden email]
>>Subject: [protege-owl] [Fwd: Is it possible to express user
>>preferencies through SWRL atoms?]
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>.
>
>
>This email is only intended for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email which must not be copied, distributed or disclosed to any other person.
>
>Unless stated otherwise, the contents of this email are personal to the writer and do not represent the official view of Ordnance Survey. Nor can any contract be formed on Ordnance Survey's behalf via email. We reserve the right to monitor emails and attachments without prior notice.
>
>Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>Ordnance Survey
>Romsey Road
>Southampton SO16 4GU
>Tel: 023 8079 2000
>http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html
>
>
>  
>


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe go to http://protege.stanford.edu/community/subscribe.html