Hello miro,
I think the rule you have created is correct, however you are getting in
to a tricky area to do with negation. OWLIM's inferencer can only infer
new statements when adding explicit statements - in effect, it assumes
monotonicity. Added to this, it is an incremental reasoner and will
apply all rules to each individual statement as it is added.
Therefore the behaviour you are seeing could well happen depending on
the order in which statements are inserted. For example,
If you assert the statements in this order:
1. ex:individual1 realestate:sameRealEstateAsCandidate ex:individual2
=> the inferencer fires the rule to get ex:individual1 ex:rel
ex:individual2
2. ex:individual1 owl:differentFrom ex:individual2
=> doesn't cause any rule to fire, but won't remove any statements either
In this order:
1. ex:individual1 owl:differentFrom ex:individual2
=> doesn't cause any rule to fire
2. ex:individual1 realestate:sameRealEstateAsCandidate ex:individual2
=> still no rule fires
Essentially, I believe the problem to be caused by modelling issues
within your ontology. If you think about it, "not equal to
owl:differentFrom" is already getting to be rather double-negative. It
seems that you have a model where some real-estates are the same unless
you state that they are different.
Is it not possible to organise things so that you make owl:sameAs
statements about these entities rather than owl:differentFrom statements?
I hope this helps,
barry
On 24/11/11 14:37, Miroslav Líška wrote:
Dear sirs,
I need to write a rule, that will be satisfied, if there exists one
relationship between individuals and one not.
For example:
x <realestate:sameRealEstateAsCandidate> y [Constraint x != y ]
x p y [Constraint p !=
<owl:differentFrom>, x != y]
...
-------------------------------------------
x <ex:rel> y
So, when there are two individuals, that are in relationship
realestate:sameRealEstateAsCandidate, and there is not relationship
owl:differentFrom between them, then x <ex:rel> y.
But, when I made a test for following triples
ex:individual1 realestate:sameRealEstateAsCandidate ex:individual2
ex:individual1 owl:differentFrom ex:individual2
Trree created following undesired triple.
ex:individual1 ex:rel ex:individual2
Could you please help me in this? I really need this inference, it is
one key rules of our matching process. When I looked in the example
shown in the start of OWL2 RL pie file, there is wery similar example,
thus I belevie I am just making some mistake. Note, that both triples
in the premise part are implicit triples.
with kindest personal regards
miro
_______________________________________________
OWLIM-discussion mailing list
OWLIM-discussion@ontotext.com
http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
_______________________________________________
OWLIM-discussion mailing list
OWLIM-discussion@ontotext.com
http://ontotext.com/mailman/listinfo/owlim-discussion
