Hello Leonard; The query doesn't create any triples because there
isn't a value bound for ?restriction. To get a new restriction, you
will need to create a URI that defines the restriction. This can be a
named URI, through smf:buildURI(), etc., but there are good reasons to
stick with the OWL standard and not name it (i.e. use a bnode). Try
the following query in the SPARQL view for a class with a matching
restriction:
CONSTRUCT {?this rdfs:subClassOf _:b0 .
_:b0 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:b0 owl:onProperty :isPartOf .
_:b0 owl:someValuesFrom ?Var1 . }
WHERE {
?this rdfs:subClassOf ?restriction1 .
?restriction1 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
?restriction1 owl:onProperty :hasPart .
?restriction1 owl:someValuesFrom ?Var1 .
}
Then you can assert or infer the graph returned by CONSTRUCT and you
will see how it works in Composer's UI. A suggestion is to use the
graph or source view to explore how the restrictions work. These, and
exploring with SPARQL queries (e.g. {?restriction1 ?p ?o}) are
valuable tools for designing any SPARQL query, including SPIN rules,
functions, templates, etc.
>From the above, you can create a SPIN template that passes in a
variable for ?Var1 in the above CONSTRUCT graph pattern. That would
allow you to create the restriction on some class different than the
original restriction.
Also, in terms of "the constructed triple is implied by the model",
keep in mind that SPARQL is a graph language. Unless otherwise
specified, no implications (entailments) are assumed or computed when
executing a query.
-- Scott
On Jul 19, 3:42 pm, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Scott,
> I have attempted to use the following rule in TBC-Me 3.5.1. But it did not
> fire. I also tried it as a SPARQL query and it did not do anything. I
> clicked the tab and it blink and gave me a blank result.
>
> The syntax is correct and the constructed triple is implied by the model.
> (unless maybe the syntax is not correct)
> Do you have any idea why this shouldn't work?
> See below,
> Best wishes,
> Leonard
>
> CONSTRUCT {?var1 rdfs:subClassOf ?restriction .
> ?restriction rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> ?restriction owl:onProperty :isPartOf .
> ?restriction owl:someValuesFrom ?Var . }
>
> WHERE {
>
> ?VAR rdfs:subClassOf ?restriction1 .
> ?restriction1 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> ?restriction1 owl:onProperty :hasPart .
> ?restriction1 owl:someValuesFrom ?Var1 .
>
> }
> On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Scott,
>
> > My reason for wanting to do this involves automating model creation. It is
> > an easy thing to use inverse properties to classify individuals.
>
> > But imagine that I have a bunch of 'hasPart somevalues from' and I want to
> > use CONSTRUCT to produce the corresponding 'isPartOf somevaluesfrom' without
> > having to do all of that work.
>
> > I will set things up with 3.5x the way that you suggest and see how things
> > work.
>
> > I will report what I find.
>
> > BTW: I am contemplating an essay that attempts to prove that SPIN is sound
> > and complete, or that it is not. But first I must understand it thoroughly.
> > Plus, the applications that I am working on will need to make use of quick
> > directed reasoning.
>
> > Best wishes,
> > Leonard
>
> > On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Scott Henninger <
> > [email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Ah, this is a different thread, so I created a new one. This is
> >> rather unusual, and I'm not clear on why you'd want to do this. The
> >> normal suggestion is to add the restriction in Composer. That's
> >> really easy and most flexible, as the ontology designer has control of
> >> what "inverse restrictions" should be applied (this seems to be a real
> >> outlier case).
>
> >> However, it seems what you really want is to state is that when a
> >> classification is found for :hasPart, the inverse should appear
> >> for :isPartOf. If that's the case, declaring {:isPartOf
> >> owl:inverseOf :hasPart} will do what you need. I'm assuming in this
> >> case that you want to end state to be:
>
> >> ?auto a :Auto .
> >> ?wheel a :Wheel .
> >> ?auto :hasPart ?wheel .
> >> ?wheel :isPartOf ?auto .
>
> >> If that's not the kind of inference you're looking for, then some more
> >> detail on what your goals are would be useful for understanding what
> >> you are asking.
>
> >> -- Scott
>
> >> On 7/15/11 3:46 PM, Leonard Jacuzzo wrote:
> >> > Hi Scott,
> >> > cls-svf1 is not what I am after.
>
> >> > Compare
> >> > # cls-svf1
> >> > CONSTRUCT {
> >> > ?u a ?x .
> >> > }
> >> > WHERE {
> >> > ?x owl:someValuesFrom ?y .
> >> > ?x owl:onProperty ?p .
> >> > ?u ?p ?v .
> >> > ?v a ?y .
> >> > }
> >> > To what I wrote:
>
> >> > > CONSTRUCT {?this rdfs:subClassOf ?restriction .
> >> > > ?restriction rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> >> > > ?restriction owl:onProperty :isPartOf .
> >> > > ?restriction owl:someValuesFrom ?Var . }
>
> >> > > WHERE {
>
> >> > > ?var rdfs:subClassOf ?restriction1 .
> >> > > ?restriction1 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> >> > > ?restriction1 owl:onProperty :hasPart .
> >> > > ?restriction1 owl:someValuesFrom ?this .
> >> > > }
> >> > What I want to do is to create a restriction on one property from a
> >> restriction on another. In this case I started with 'haspart' being
> >> restricted to WHEEL and end up with isPart being restricted to auto. Where
> >> Wheel is a subclass of the latter restriction and Auto is a subclass of the
> >> former restriction.
>
> >> > Maybe I can explain it better with some thought.
>
> >> > Thanks again, I am having fun.
> >> > LFJ
> >> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Scott Henninger <
> >> [email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> > See comments inline:
>
> >> > > Hi Scott,
> >> > > Thanks for this. It did not work for me. How is your inferencing
> >> configured?
>
> >> > I have TopSPIN configured for inferencing. What didn't work? The
> >> > queries do use some SPARQL 1.1 features that may not be in earlier
> >> > versions of TBC. Upgrading to 3.5.x will work, as will replacing IF
> >> > with smf:if and COALESCE with smf:firstBound.
>
> >> > > Also, your rule seems to be constructing a restriction. How does
> >> the inferencing work such that an individual is classified as a teenager?
> >> Does the reasoner construct the restriction and then determine that Since
> >> the individual is a person, and a member of the restriction class, and
> >> teenager is the intersection of Person and The Restriction, the individul
> >> is
> >> therefore a teenager?
>
> >> > A restriction creates an unnamed node (bnode) that represents a
> >> > class. In the case of an equivalentClass restriction on a class,
> >> the
> >> > restriction is an equivalentClass meaning that all members of the
> >> > restriction are also members of the class. E.g. suppose we have:
> >> > :Teenager a owl:Class .
> >> > <restr> owl:equivalentClass :Teenager
>
> >> > The restriction, such as "Person and (hasAge only xsd:integer[>= 13
> >> ,
> >> > <= 19])" is applied to the class defined by the restriction. Since
> >> it
> >> > is an equivalent class with :Teenager, then all members of the
> >> > restriction are members of :Teenager, and vice-versa.
>
> >> > > I am trying to get a handle on how SPIN works to perform
> >> inferences based on OWL semantics. Maybe a more general rule would be
> >> better.
>
> >> > On its own, it doesn't. SPIN is a different way to accomplish
> >> > inferences. It is based on SPARQL, and as such has no inherent
> >> > interactions with OWL (it is rdf-based). However, one of the OWL 2
> >> > profiles, OWL 2 RL, is defined such that a triple-based rule engine
> >> > can implement it directly. SPARQL, using CONSTRUCT, is one such
> >> > engine. When you choose OWL2 RL in the Ontology Home Profile, a set
> >> > of rules implementing OWL 2RL profile are applied when you run
> >> > inferences.
>
> >> > In effect, this imports TopBraid/SPIN/owlrl-all.rdf. For a listing
> >> of
> >> > these rules, seehttp://topbraid.org/spin/owlrl-all.html. Compare
> >> > these to the standard,
> >>http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Gra...
> >> ,
> >> > and you'll see this is a direct implementation the profile.
>
> >> > So, as a simpler example, see the cas-sco rule:
>
> >> > CONSTRUCT { ?x a ?c2 .}
> >> > WHERE {
> >> > ?c1 rdfs:subClassOf ?c2 .
> >> > ?x a ?c1 .
> >> > }
>
> >> > This is the classic subclassOf inference. If ?x is a member of ?c1
> >> > and ?c1 is a subClassOf ?c2, then ?x is a member of ?c2.
>
> >> > > So instead of classifying an individual, I tried to do some class
> >> level reasoning. For example, If I have a class such as Automobile and it
> >> is
> >> defined as a subclass of the restriction on 'Haspart' to some value wheel,
> >> how would a rule that resulted in "wheel isPartOF some Automobile.
>
> >> > > So I want to go from
>
> >> > > Auto :subClassOf {hasPart some Wheel}
>
> >> > > To
>
> >> > > Wheel :subClassOf {isPartOf some Automobile}
>
> >> > someValuesOf restrictions on someValesOf are already included in OWL
> >> 2
> >> > RL, so you don't need to re-implement them. See cls-svf1 and cls-
> >> > svf2.
>
> >> > -- Scott
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid
> >> Composer,
> >> TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
> >> 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-users?hl=en
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer,
TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN.
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-users?hl=en
