SPIN generally suggests an object-oriented style in which rules and constraints are attached to classes. However, you can still express global constraints by simply attaching them to owl:Thing or rdfs:Resource (and not mentioning ?this in the where clauses). So yes you can express global ranges or domains in SPIN.
And no, as discussed in other threads, there is no Pellet 2 plugin for TBC, and we don't plan to provide it due to licensing complications. Holger On Feb 9, 2009, at 8:02 AM, Christoph wrote: > > Are the SPIN rules only defined on class level or can I define them on > properties for example to check the constraints above? I reckon that > there is no plugin for Pellet 2? > > Thanks > > On 9 Feb., 16:54, Scott Henninger <[email protected]> wrote: >> Christoph; Yes this would be an inconsistent definition. In >> general, >> OWLIM does not have any mechanism to detect and display inconsistency >> warnings, as Pellet does. Therefore this "error" (more like a limit >> on datalog reasoners - they create triples and that is it) will be >> present for SwiftOWLIM any time you want to detect inconsistencies. >> Pellet is one alternative, but a very fussy one. >> >> SPIN constraints are another alternative. In Composer, the >> advantages >> are1) you can control which in inconsistencies to look for, 2) you >> are >> not constrained by RDFS and OWL constructs, and 3) performance is >> similar to datalog (OWLIM) reasoners than full Tableau (Pellet) >> reasoners. >> >> -- Scott >> >> On Feb 9, 10:22 am, Christoph <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> but if I have another concept called eType, that is disjoint with >>> dType and I have the instance e1 of Type eType: >>> and define the triple e1 :aProp :r2 >>> then the reasoner should complain about this as e1 cannot be of Type >>> dType, but OWLIM does not. >> >>> Thanks, Christoph >> >>> On 9 Feb., 16:07, Scott Henninger <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >> >>>> Christoph; The inferences you can make with domain and range are >>>> that >>>> given domain and/or range restrictions on a property, you can infer >>>> the type of a resource. For example, given the triples: >>>> :r1 :aProp :r2 >>>> :aProp rdfs:domain :dType >>>> :aProp rdfs:range :rType >> >>>> The following inference will be made: >>>> :r1 rdf:type :dType >>>> :r2 rdf:type :rType >> >>>> SwiftOWLIM will make this inference. BTW, there is an excellent >>>> treatment of this and other RDFS/OWL inferences in Allemang & >>>> Handler's Working Ontologist book. Highly recommended! >> >>>> -- Scott >> >>>> On Feb 9, 7:56 am, Christoph <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>>>> If I have a property with domain and range restriction and I use >>>>> this >>>>> property with another domain (both domains are disjoint) then >>>>> there is >>>>> no error when reasoning is applied. >> >>>>> Does OWLIM not support domain/range restrictions? >> >>>>> br, Christoph- Zitierten Text ausblenden - >> >>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden - >> >> - Zitierten Text anzeigen - > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
