Dave meant that you need an additional layer of reasoning like RDFS or
even less to get the inferences that you describe.
This can be done by
a) nesting two InfModels one that works on your specific rules and one
that uses some kind of RDFS or
b) adding the particular rules to your set of rules
> Ok sorry Dave, actually I did not completely understand your answer.
>
> "You could have an inference model with the appropriate configuration to
> deduce membership of employee"
>
> Yes I have the inference model:
> Reasoner reasoner = new GenericRuleReasoner(Rule.parseRules(rule));
> InfModel infer = ModelFactory.createInfModel(reasoner, model);
>
> Query query = QueryFactory.create(queryString);
>
> QueryExecution qe = QueryExecutionFactory.create(query, infer);
>
> What additionally I have to do apart from my Jena rule (Forward Chain)
> mentioned in previous email and the inference model.
>
> And of course, I will have a SPARQL query :
> Select *
> where{ ?x rdf:type emp:QualifiedEmployee }
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 22/11/16 14:56, tina sani wrote:
>>
>>> Let me explain a bit.
>>>
>>> String rule = "[rule1:(?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
>>> http://www.semanticweb.org#Employee) "
>>> + "( ?x http://www.semanticweb.org#Salary ?salary )"
>>> + "greaterThan(?salary, 10,00) "
>>> + " -> (?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-r
>>> df-syntax-ns#type
>>> http://www.semanticweb.org#QualifiedEmployee. )]"
>>>
>>>
>>> Classes in my ontology are
>>>
>>> Employee (Super class of all employees)
>>> * ContractEmployee* (Subclass of Employee)
>>> FinanceManager
>>> ITManager (Subclasses of ContractEmployee)
>>> * PermanantEmployee *(Subclass of Employee)
>>> Analyst
>>> Programmer
>>>
>>> In this case, will I use ?x rdf:type Employee or ?x rdf:type
>>> ContractEmployee
>>> All the instances are either from subclasses * FinanceManager , ITManager
>>> or Analyst, Programmer*
>>>
>>> *Is it must that if I use ?x rdf:type Employee, then FinanceManager &
>>> ITManager should also be sub classes of general super class "Employee" ?*
>>>
>> I don't think any of these details change my earlier answer, quoted below.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 5:30 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/11/16 10:12, tina sani wrote:
>>>> Inline image 1
>>>>>
>>>> The mail list doesn't support attachments so the image didn't come
>>>> through.
>>>>
>>>> However, I'm guessing it included a class Employee with sub-classes
>>>> ContractEmployee and PermanantEmployee.
>>>>
>>>> I have this ontology: Now if I want to use some rules like
>>>>
>>>>> if x rdf:type Employee and ?x salary>Euro10,000. then ?x
>>>>> QualifiedEmployee.
>>>>>
>>>>> My question here is should I use ?x rdf:type Employee or ?x rdf:type
>>>>> ContractEmployee or PermanantEmployee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Depends on your set up.
>>>>
>>>> You could have an inference model with the appropriate configuration to
>>>> deduce membership of employee and then query that with SPARQL or with a
>>>> second inference model with your own rules in.
>>>>
>>>> If you want just one layer of rules and want to combine OWL/RDFS with
>>>> your
>>>> custom rules then that's possible (so long as you set all the appropriate
>>>> flags, see documentation) but make sure that your own rules are backward
>>>> not forward rules. [The default Jena rule sets for RDFS and OWL are
>>>> hybrid
>>>> rules so some of the inferences are only available to backward rules in
>>>> the
>>>> same rule set.]
>>>>
>>>> Or if you don't want the cost of full inference then you can indeed
>>>> rewrite the "natural" query to explicitly check for the base memberships.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>>
--
Lorenz Bühmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center
