Many thanks Lorenz On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 8:09 AM, Lorenz Buehmann < buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> By using a reasoner that supports SWRL? Pellet and HermiT support (parts > of) SWRL. And for Pellet there is a Jena implementation. Thus, you > should use the Pellet reasoner in Jena. Otherwise, you have to use the > OWL API. > > > On 14.07.2017 23:00, tina sani wrote: > > I still did not get can that we use SWRL using Jena API? The inference we > > use in SWRL will be in our Ontology so how can we use it in our > application? > > > > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:10 PM, tina sani <tinamadri...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> It means SWRL is better than Jena rules. I like this "no non-monotonic > >> inference" because some time Jena rules makes problems when it does nor > >> replace data over other. > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 5:09 PM, Lorenz Buehmann > <buehm...@informatik.uni- > >> leipzig.de> wrote: > >> > >>> Are you sure that you can achieve the same? > >>> > >>> > >>> some points regarding SWRL: > >>> > >>> * W3C recommendation > >>> > >>> * OWL-based rule language, i.e. rules are part of the OWL ontology in > >>> forms of OWL axioms > >>> > >>> * Open World Assumption > >>> > >>> * built on the same description logic foundation as OWL > >>> > >>> * deductive reasoning > >>> > >>> * reasoning in SWRL is undecidable (thus, most reasoner limit the > >>> supported SWRL features to remain decidability) > >>> > >>> * no negation as failure > >>> > >>> * similar to OWL no non-monotonic inference > >>> > >>> * no disjunction of atoms > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 14.07.2017 13:02, tina sani wrote: > >>>> Usually we achieve the same result with Jena rules we achieve using > SWRL > >>>> rules. So is there any advantage of using one on another? Second, can > we > >>>> use both SWRL rules along side the Jena rules in our Semantic web > >>>> application(s)? > >>>> > >>> > >
