rule tab in protege 4.3

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

rule tab in protege 4.3

sharmi m
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?


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

Re: rule tab in protege 4.3

Lorenz Buehmann

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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: rule tab in protege 4.3

Lorenz Buehmann

And to answer your question, you're writing SWRL rules in this tab and an OWL reasoner that supports it, e.g. Pellet, will use those rules for inference.


On 08.06.2017 11:27, Lorenz Buehmann wrote:

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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: rule tab in protege 4.3

sharmi m
Dear Lorenz sir,

I missed to notice your earlier answer. Thank you.

I have designed a complete ontology in protege 4.3 and validated it. So, I wonder switching over at this level to a higher ver of protege will be feasible or not.

By the way, I was asked with a question on my ontology as "how to ensure your rules are decidable?".
I have implemented around 15 rules ( without any SWRL built in) and that are reasoned  by pellet well and I could derive the inferred knowledge.

I am looking for the way to prove my rules are decidable.  Decidability have been discussed in literature on so many aspects..

( no built-ins,  named individuals, variables used in head is used in body..etc)
How to prove ? can you suggest me?

Thank you...

-Sharmi

  
NB: Dear Ralph, kindly excuse me for repeating the question to you which was answered by Mr.Lorenz.
'


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

And to answer your question, you're writing SWRL rules in this tab and an OWL reasoner that supports it, e.g. Pellet, will use those rules for inference.


On 08.06.2017 11:27, Lorenz Buehmann wrote:

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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: rule tab in protege 4.3

Lorenz Buehmann
Indeed you can save your rules and use them in Protege 5.2 . Protege uses the OWL API, thus, SWRL rules are serialized as OWL axioms and can be loaded again afterwards.

If Pellet can process the rules, then those are decidable. In general, nobody means a particular set of rules when talking about decidability but a whole formalism resp. algorithm. Reasoners like Pellet regain decidability by restricting the form of admissible rules, typically by imposing a suitable safety condition. For instance, not all built-ins are supported in Pellet.

Dear Lorenz sir,

I missed to notice your earlier answer. Thank you.

I have designed a complete ontology in protege 4.3 and validated it. So, I wonder switching over at this level to a higher ver of protege will be feasible or not.

By the way, I was asked with a question on my ontology as "how to ensure your rules are decidable?".
I have implemented around 15 rules ( without any SWRL built in) and that are reasoned  by pellet well and I could derive the inferred knowledge.

I am looking for the way to prove my rules are decidable.  Decidability have been discussed in literature on so many aspects..

( no built-ins,  named individuals, variables used in head is used in body..etc)
How to prove ? can you suggest me?

Thank you...

-Sharmi

  
NB: Dear Ralph, kindly excuse me for repeating the question to you which was answered by Mr.Lorenz.
'


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

And to answer your question, you're writing SWRL rules in this tab and an OWL reasoner that supports it, e.g. Pellet, will use those rules for inference.


On 08.06.2017 11:27, Lorenz Buehmann wrote:

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
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: rule tab in protege 4.3

Lorenz Buehmann
As a follow up answer: Pellet supports SWRL by means of so-called DL-Safe rules [1] which is a proper subset of SWRL, see the Pellet FAQ for some information [2]

Cheers,
Lorenz


[1] http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/boris.motik/pubs/mss05query-journal.pdf
[2] https://github.com/stardog-union/pellet/wiki/FAQ#does-pellet-support-rules-swrl-which-builtins

Indeed you can save your rules and use them in Protege 5.2 . Protege uses the OWL API, thus, SWRL rules are serialized as OWL axioms and can be loaded again afterwards.

If Pellet can process the rules, then those are decidable. In general, nobody means a particular set of rules when talking about decidability but a whole formalism resp. algorithm. Reasoners like Pellet regain decidability by restricting the form of admissible rules, typically by imposing a suitable safety condition. For instance, not all built-ins are supported in Pellet.

Dear Lorenz sir,

I missed to notice your earlier answer. Thank you.

I have designed a complete ontology in protege 4.3 and validated it. So, I wonder switching over at this level to a higher ver of protege will be feasible or not.

By the way, I was asked with a question on my ontology as "how to ensure your rules are decidable?".
I have implemented around 15 rules ( without any SWRL built in) and that are reasoned  by pellet well and I could derive the inferred knowledge.

I am looking for the way to prove my rules are decidable.  Decidability have been discussed in literature on so many aspects..

( no built-ins,  named individuals, variables used in head is used in body..etc)
How to prove ? can you suggest me?

Thank you...

-Sharmi

  
NB: Dear Ralph, kindly excuse me for repeating the question to you which was answered by Mr.Lorenz.
'


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

And to answer your question, you're writing SWRL rules in this tab and an OWL reasoner that supports it, e.g. Pellet, will use those rules for inference.


On 08.06.2017 11:27, Lorenz Buehmann wrote:

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
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
-- 
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: rule tab in protege 4.3

sharmi m
Dear Lorenz sir,

Thank you so much for your answer.
Indeed the references are so useful.
I get my points cleared now.

-Sharmi



On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Lorenz B. <[hidden email]> wrote:
As a follow up answer: Pellet supports SWRL by means of so-called DL-Safe rules [1] which is a proper subset of SWRL, see the Pellet FAQ for some information [2]

Cheers,
Lorenz


[1] http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/boris.motik/pubs/mss05query-journal.pdf
[2] https://github.com/stardog-union/pellet/wiki/FAQ#does-pellet-support-rules-swrl-which-builtins

Indeed you can save your rules and use them in Protege 5.2 . Protege uses the OWL API, thus, SWRL rules are serialized as OWL axioms and can be loaded again afterwards.

If Pellet can process the rules, then those are decidable. In general, nobody means a particular set of rules when talking about decidability but a whole formalism resp. algorithm. Reasoners like Pellet regain decidability by restricting the form of admissible rules, typically by imposing a suitable safety condition. For instance, not all built-ins are supported in Pellet.

Dear Lorenz sir,

I missed to notice your earlier answer. Thank you.

I have designed a complete ontology in protege 4.3 and validated it. So, I wonder switching over at this level to a higher ver of protege will be feasible or not.

By the way, I was asked with a question on my ontology as "how to ensure your rules are decidable?".
I have implemented around 15 rules ( without any SWRL built in) and that are reasoned  by pellet well and I could derive the inferred knowledge.

I am looking for the way to prove my rules are decidable.  Decidability have been discussed in literature on so many aspects..

( no built-ins,  named individuals, variables used in head is used in body..etc)
How to prove ? can you suggest me?

Thank you...

-Sharmi

  
NB: Dear Ralph, kindly excuse me for repeating the question to you which was answered by Mr.Lorenz.
'


On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Lorenz Buehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

And to answer your question, you're writing SWRL rules in this tab and an OWL reasoner that supports it, e.g. Pellet, will use those rules for inference.


On 08.06.2017 11:27, Lorenz Buehmann wrote:

I'd suggest to use Protege 5.2 or what is the reason for using the old version?


On 08.06.2017 10:31, Sharmi M wrote:
Hello All,


I could write rules in protege 4.3 using rule tab and get it executed.

is "Rule tab" supported in protege 4.3 DL rule or SWRL rule?

can you clarify?



_______________________________________________
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
-- 
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
-- 
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



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