Holger,

Thanks!

Ok, so here is a sample ontology, which I hope clarifies things.

Ontology1:
       has a class person
       each person has a profession

Ontology2:
       has a class professional
       each professional has a profession
       each profession is owl:oneOf {engineer, teacher, doctor,
lawyer...}

The mapping that takes place is:

ont1:profession -> ont2:profession

In TopBraid this seems to require iterating through the owl:oneOf list
to pick the correct type.  In the SWRL rule this is not necessary.  We
wrote the SWRL rules by hand in the rdf/xml format.

Thanks for your help!

Suzanne


On Nov 12, 11:46 am, Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > For my first question, I may have not been specific enough.  I am
> > creating a function via an eclipse plug-in, which requires me to
> > extend AbstractFunction1, AbstractFunction2 or AbstractFunction3.
> > This is what is limiting the number of arguments.  Is there a
> > workaround for this?
>
> Ah, yes sure. Either implement the Jena interface Function directly,  
> or subclass
>
> org.topbraid.sparql.functions.AbstractFunction
>
>
>
>
>
> > For my second question, here is the SWRL rule which corresponds to the
> > query:
>
> > <ruleml:imp>
> >    <ruleml:_body>
> >      <swrlx:datavaluedPropertyAtom swrlx:property="&ont1;property">
> >        <ruleml:var>entity</ruleml:var>
> >        <ruleml:var>value</ruleml:var>
> >      </swrlx:datavaluedPropertyAtom>
> >    </ruleml:_body>
> >    <ruleml:_head>
> >      <swrlx:individualPropertyAtom swrlx:property="&ont2;property">
> >        <ruleml:var>entity</ruleml:var>
> >        <ruleml:var>value</ruleml:var>
> >    </ruleml:_head>
> >  </ruleml:imp>
>
> > For some reason in SWRL it matches the URI without having to iterate
> > through the list.  Let me know if you need anymore information.
>
> Yes I guess we will need more information. What tool did you create  
> the above rule with? Doesn't look like real SWRL to me. Also, you  
> stated that you need to match against owl:oneOfs? I don't see how this  
> is related. Could you provide the actual example ontology and some  
> other clues?
>
> Thanks
> Holger
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to