Scott, You might want to rethink the example you gave below for property domain definitions. The spin:constraint (as you defined it) flags all the cases where the subject matches the defined domain type.
--Lowell On Feb 9, 12:54 pm, Scott Henninger <[email protected]> wrote: > Christoph; Using SPIN requires a different way of thinking about the > problem. I believe what you want to state is that any use of the a > property needs to have a resource of the correct domain/range type > (correct me if I am misreading your intent). You can state this (more > directly) as a spin:constraint - here's an example for property domain > defs: > > # subject does not match defined domain type > ASK WHERE { > ?this ?prop ?obj . > ?prop rdfs:domain ?domain . > ?this a ?domain . > > } > > The constraint warning will show the text you put in the initial > comment - i.e. all instance of this violation will state "subject does > not match defined domain type (SPIN constraint at owl:Thing)" I > defined this at owl:Thing, but could have defined it for > rdfs:Resource, rdfs:class, or my:fiddlestyx. That's a big modeling > advantage, IMHO. > > You can also define this as a CONSTRUCT query, instead of ASK, and > make all violations a member of a class, such as > spin:ConstraintViolation. > > Holger's blog (http://composing-the-semantic-web.blogspot.com/) has > excellent examples. > > In terms of Pellet 2, if some entity were to do us the favor of > creating a 3rd party plugin, there would be no licensing > complications... > > -- Scott > > On Feb 9, 11:31 am, "Atanas Kiryakov" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello everyone > > > first: thanks to to everyone who commented on the subject! > > > Indeed, Ontotext is going no infer inconsistency. There are several things > > to be commented: > > > - in RDFS semantics there is no notion of inconsistency (at least not at > > this level). Treating global property domain and range definitions (defined > > through rdfs:domain and range) as constrains is *not* the proper > > interpreation. This is for good reason RDFS is defined to support open-world > > semantics in non-controlled web environment. There are obviously scenarios > > where inconsistency interpretation is necessary (mostly in DB-style > > closed-world setups). Such constrainst are available in other languages > > (e.g. some flavors of OWL 2, as well as WSML,http://www.wsml.org/) > > > - ter Horst, [1], defines two inconsistency rules which are easy to > > interpret with datalog-type inference "... > > - a combination of two triples of the form v differentFrom w, v sameAs w, or > > - a combination of three triples of the form v disjointWith w, u type v, u > > type w. ..." > > > - OWLIM can easily support the above type of incompleteness inference, but > > there were two minor obstacles: (i) Sesame framework does not provide a > > standard mechanism to report such inconsistencies and (ii) we need a minor > > alternation in the rule language of OWLIM, so, that such rules can be > > defined and . > > > - will provide inconsistency support in one of the next versions of OWLIM. > > We will solve the minor "infrastructure" issues (rule language and APIs) and > > provide rulesets (inference profiles) where: (i) the terHorst inconsistency > > rules are added and (ii) alternative domain and range support where those > > are treated as inconsistency check, instead of generative inference rule > > > Meanwhile, one can check for inconsistencies by wrapping the above-mentioned > > inconsistency rules as queries. > > > Regards, > > Naso > > > [1]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B758F-4H16P4... > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Atanas Kiryakov > > CEO of Ontotext AD,http://www.ontotext.com > > Sirma Group Corp,http://www.sirma.bg > > Phone: (+359 2) 8091 555; Fax: 8090 404 > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave McComb" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:21 PM > > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: owlim > > > Yeah, the issue is OWLIM doesn't do disjoints (or complements), it does the > > domain and range fine but won't enforce the disjointness > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:topbraid- > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Christoph > > > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:23 AM > > > To: TopBraid Composer Users > > > Subject: [tbc-users] Re: owlim > > > > 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 - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
