I am using Protege 3.4 and I built my ontology and extended it with SWRL rules using SWRL and sqwrl built ins . The rules classifies instances of a class of the ontology ; the RHS is class assertion of an instance .It works successfully but when I change the values of the causes in the LHS no reclassification is done the instance is asserted to the same class
Why does this happen ? How to reclassify instances ?
ex:
SWRL rules:
1. Message(?m) hasInterest(?m,?i) hasCategory(?m,?c) sqwrl:makeset(?s1,?i) sqwrl:makeset(?s2,?c) sqwrl:intersection(?s3,?s1,?s2) sqwrl:size(?n,?s3) swrlb:greaterThan(?n,0) -> Ham(?m)
Message(?m) hasInterest(?m,?i) hasCategory(?m,?c) sqwrl:makeset(?s1,?i) sqwrl:makeset(?s2,?c) sqwrl:difference(?s3,?s1,?s2) sqwrl:size(?n,?s3) swrlb:greaterThan(?n,0) -> Spam(?m)
So once the message instance is classified as ham for example , whenever I change the values of i or c it will always be ham .
Related
I'm a protégé newbie and did the pizza tutorial and read the 101 documentation. I'm trying to model a ontology like the following picture:
I have a person who has a style. The style can be a style_active or style_passive.
This style is determined by a index of two data properties:
ind_passive and ind_active, the bigger value should infer the style.
I had to create two individuals: style_active and style_passive, because they must be individuals to be assigned to the object property has_style.
How to infer the value of has_style object property based on ind_passive and ind_active data properties? Using a reasoner?
Is something wrong with this model?
I suceed in calculate the value of style object property based on two swrl rules. It does not work with a reasoner like HermiT (default in Protégé 5.5), but works in SWRLTab, that uses Drools.
The rules I used:
Name: Passive
Rule: Person(?p) ^ ind_passive(?p, ?ip) ^ ind_active(?p, ?ia) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?ip, ?ia) -> has_style(?p, style_passive)
Name: Active
Rule: Person(?p) ^ ind_passive(?p, ?ip) ^ ind_active(?p, ?ia) ^ swrlb:greaterThan(?ia, ?ip) -> has_style(?p, style_active)
The reasoner Hermit could not be enabled after using this rules, because it does not supports "built-in atoms", like swrlb:greaterThan.
I have been studying Protege and I have a question. I added an individual with name aaa in ontology "people.owl" which I downloaded from the internet.
I set type assertion as:
sheep and hasCC value 200,
where hasCC is data property.
Then, in class animal I created two classes: hhh and lll.
I set hhh as equivalent and there wrote:
animal and (hasCC some decimal[>= 150])
For lll I set:
animal and (hasCC some decimal[< 250])
When I run HermiT reasoner I see that the individual aaa is classified in both lll and hhh classes.
But when I set lll and hhh classes to be disjoint and run the reasoner the classes are not classified in the class "Nothing" as, for example, the class "mad_cow". I get a message:
"Your ontology is inconsistent which means that the OWL reasoner will no longer be able to provide any useful information about the ontology." After clicking the button "Explain" I get:
Could you say, why lll and hhh classes cannot be classified as Nothing?
What should I correct to let lll and hhh classes to be classified as Nothing?
Thank you!
"Your ontology is inconsistent which means that the OWL reasoner will no longer be able to provide any useful information about the ontology."
Isn't this saying it all already? You complain that the reasoner is not doing something but the reasoner explicitly tells you that it is not able to provide any useful information! Make your ontology consistent, then you can expect something from the reasoner.
In any case, you cannot expect a class that contains an instance (here the classes hhh and lll both must contain instance aaa) to be equivalent to Nothing. Nothing precisely means "the class that does not have any instance".
This is my ontology created with protege 5 .
If i make cl1 and cl2 disjoint, then the ontology is being inconsistent , but if i uncheck is_friend_of reflexive , the ontology is not inconsistent any more . whats wrong with my ontology ?
I want only cl1 class individuals have is_friend_of property.
Reflexivity of :is_friend_of is essential for inconsistency.
Take a look at Reasoner > Inconsistent ontology explanation :
I'll try to translate this explanation into (poor) English:
Since :is_friend_of is reflexive, then :c2_inst :is_friend_of :c2_inst.
Since the domain of :is_friend_of is :cl1, then c2_inst rdf:type :cl1.
Also, c2_inst rdf:type :cl2.
But :cl1 and :cl2 are disjoint — contradiction.
In fact, the domain of every reflexive property is owl:Thing.
As a workaround, you could uncheck reflexivity of is_friend_of and define :cl1 in this way:
Class: cl1
EquivalentTo:
is_friend_of some owl:Thing,
is_friend_of some Self
Using Protege and SWRL tab, I have the ontology mentioned hereinafter. It is composed of the Class Test and the class Shadow, where Test has three individuals t1, t2, t3. I was trying to define an SWRL rule that creates an individual of Shadow class for each existing individual of Test, the rule is
Test(?x) ^ swrlx:makeOWLThing(?new, ?x) -> Shadow(?new)
QUESTIONS:
Only one individual of Shadow, named fred is created, instead of three (corresponding to t1, t2, t3).
How to control the naming of the resulting individual which is always named fred?
Prefix(:=<http://www.semanticweb.org/hilal/ontologies/2016/5/untitled- ontology-58#>)
Prefix(owl:=<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#>)
Prefix(rdf:=<http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#>)
Prefix(xml:=<http://www.w3.org/XML/1998/namespace>)
Prefix(xsd:=<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#>)
Prefix(rdfs:=<http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#>)
Ontology(<http://www.semanticweb.org/hilal/ontologies/2016/5/untitled- ontology-58>
Declaration(Class(:Shadow))
Declaration(Class(:Test))
Declaration(NamedIndividual(:t1))
Declaration(NamedIndividual(:t2))
Declaration(NamedIndividual(:t3))
Declaration(AnnotationProperty(<http://swrl.stanford.edu/ontologies/3.3/swrla.owl#isRuleEnabled>))
############################
# Named Individuals
############################
# Individual: :t1 (:t1)
ClassAssertion(:Test :t1)
# Individual: :t2 (:t2)
ClassAssertion(:Test :t2)
# Individual: :t3 (:t3)
ClassAssertion(:Test :t3)
DLSafeRule(Annotation(<http://swrl.stanford.edu/ontologies/3.3/swrla.owl#isRuleEnabled> "true"^^xsd:boolean) Annotation(rdfs:comment ""^^xsd:string) Annotation(rdfs:label "S1"^^xsd:string) Body(BuiltInAtom(<http://swrl.stanford.edu/ontologies/built-ins/3.3/swrlx.owl#makeOWLThing> Variable(<new>) Variable(<x>)) ClassAtom(:Test Variable(<x>)))Head(ClassAtom(:Shadow Variable(<new>))))
)
SWRL rules cannot create new individuals, as far as I understand the DL Safe conditions.
In the comments, you linked to an article describing the semantics of that extension:
One of the the first built-ins I implemented provided the ability to create new individuals in a controlled manner. There is a detailed explanation in [2], but basically a built-in called swrlx:makeOWLThing creates a new individual and binds it to its first unbound argument; a new individual is created for each unique pattern of the remaining arguments.
Now, let's take a look at your rule as written in the question:
Test(?x) ^ swrlx:makeOWLThing(?new, ?x) -> Shadow(?new)
If the atoms are processed from left to right, then ?x should be bound when makeOWLThing is encountered, but ?new isn't. That means that you should get a new individuals bound to the variable ?new, and for each value of ?x you should get a different value of ?new. That's what it sounds like you want. However, in the code you posted, I see this:
DLSafeRule(
Annotation(<http://swrl.stanford.edu/ontologies/3.3/swrla.owl#isRuleEnabled> "true"^^xsd:boolean)
Annotation(rdfs:comment ""^^xsd:string)
Annotation(rdfs:label "S1"^^xsd:string)
Body(
BuiltInAtom(<http://swrl.stanford.edu/ontologies/built-ins/3.3/swrlx.owl#makeOWLThing>
Variable(<new>)
Variable(<x>))
ClassAtom(:Test Variable(<x>)))
Head(
ClassAtom(:Shadow Variable(<new>))))
)
I'm not certain, but if that's processed from left to right as well, the makeOWLThing(?new,?x) appears first, in which case ?x would be unbound when the new individual is created, so you'd only get one new individual.
InfModel infmodel = ModelFactory.createInfModel(reasoner, m);
Resource vegetarian = infmodel.getResource(source + "Vegetarian");
Resource margherita = infmodel.getResource(source + "Example-Margherita");
if (infmodel.contains(margherita, RDF., vegetarian)) {
System.out.println("Margherita is a memberOf Vegetarian pizza");
}
The example given above is formed by formal pizza.owl. In this owl, Example-Margherita is an individual of Margherita class. So, it is already written in owl file. However, the problem is that the reasoner should infer that margherita-example should be also an vegetarian pizza.
Could anyone please give an example that shows how to find an individual's possible inferred classes like in Protege ?(Protege correctly infers that Example-Margherita is a Vegetarian Pizza. However, I can't infer programmatically)
I solved my question. I think there was a problem with my ontology. Therefore, I created another ontology to infer individuals. The ontology that I created contains Person and subclasses of Person : MalePerson, FemalePerson and MarriedPerson. And, there are two object properties(hasSpouse, hasSibling) and one data type property(hasAge).
And, I created 3 individuals.
John - MalePerson - hasAge(20) - hasSibling(Jane)
Jane - FemalePerson - hasSibling(John) - hasSpouse(Bob)
Bob - MalePerson - hasSpouse(Jane)
And, I put two restrictions for MalePerson and FemalePerson classes.
For MalePerson :
hasSpouse max 1
hasSpouse only MalePerson
For FemalePerson :
hasSpouse max 1
hasSpouse only FemalePerson
Lastly, I made MarriedPerson to be a defined class. Before reasoning, MarriedPerson has no individual. However, the model should infer that Jane and Bob are married. Therefore, at the end, MarriedPerson class should have 2 individuals.
When I ran this code in Java using Jena, I got 2 inferred individuals.
OntModel ontModel = ModelFactory.createOntologyModel();
InputStream in = FileManager.get().open(inputFileName);
if (in == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException( "File: " + inputFileName + " not found");
}
ontModel.read(in, "");
Reasoner reasoner = ReasonerRegistry.getOWLReasoner();
reasoner = reasoner.bindSchema(ontModel);
// Obtain standard OWL-DL spec and attach the Pellet reasoner
OntModelSpec ontModelSpec = OntModelSpec.OWL_DL_MEM;
ontModelSpec.setReasoner(reasoner);
// Create ontology model with reasoner support
OntModel model = ModelFactory.createOntologyModel(ontModelSpec, ontModel);
// MarriedPerson has no asserted instances
// However, if an inference engine is used, two of the three
// individuals in the example presented here will be
// recognized as MarriedPersons
//ns is the uri
OntClass marPerson = model.getOntClass(ns + "OWLClass_00000003866036241880"); // this is the uri for MarriedPerson class
ExtendedIterator married = marPerson.listInstances();
while(married.hasNext()) {
OntResource mp = (OntResource)married.next();
System.out.println(mp.getURI());
} // this code returns 2 individuals with the help of reasoner