On 21/02/12 21:37, Bethea, Wayne L. wrote:
In my code I attempt to do OWL subclass inference by creating a Jena OntModel
using the code:
- OntModel hModel =
ModelFactory.creatOntologyModel(OntModelSpec.OWL_DL_MEM_TRANS_INF);
And checking for subclass existence using the code:
- Boolean pd =
propDomain.asClass().hasSubClass(domainTypeStatement.getObject().asResource());
OWL_DL_MEM_TRANS_INF - is a specification for OWL DL models that are stored in memory and
use the transitive inference for additional entailments. This is sufficient for subclass
inference of simple classes
(Entity<-AbstractEntity<-Account<-FinancialAccount<-BankAccount), but is not
sufficient for subclass inference of more complex classes:
Correct, it only implements rdfs:subClassOf and rdfs:subPropertyOf.
<owl:Class>
<owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
<rdf:Description rdf:about="#Device"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="#FacilityRegion"/>
</owl:unionOf>
</owl:Class>
and CommunicationDevice.
I don't follow that example, too many bits missing.
I've tried to use different OntModelSpecs to get the subclass inference that I
am looking for but I haven't been able to identify the correct one. I've tried:
- OntModel hModel =
ModelFactory.creatOntologyModel(OntModelSpec.OWL_DL_MEM_RULE_INF);
but it seems to have the opposite effect where it can capture the subclass
inference involving more complex classes but not the simple class subclass
inference.
It certainly should be a superset of the simple cases.
Do you have a specific, minimal example of an entailment RULE_INF misses
but which is handled by one of the simpler configurations?
Any advice on the correct Jena OntModelSpec to use to capture relatively easy
subclass inference would be appreciated.
My general advice is to use OWL_MICRO (which in OntModel terms is
OWL_MEM_MICRO_RULE_INF) as the best trade-off for power and efficiency.
I seem to remember that it handles unionOf. Otherwise go for OWL_MINI.
Dave
