Re: Need Help on Reasoner

You are right. The problem is solved by adding notEqual(?x2, ?x3) to the reasoner terms. Thanks for the help! I thought ?x2 and ?x3 would by default be treated as different values, but I was wrong. On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, A. Soroka wrote: > There may very well be a

Re: Need Help on Reasoner

There may very well be a better way to do this, but to start with you might be able to use the built-in primitive notEqual(?x,?y). [1] That should compare URI-nodes as you would expect, by their URIs. Of course, it's up to you to enforce a temporary and scoped UNA inside your graph. If (as is

Re: Need Help on Reasoner

Thanks, Soroka. That's also what I suspect. Anyone know how to make two variables like ?x2 and ?x3 different in a rule? On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:14 AM, A. Soroka wrote: > If I understand what's happening here correctly (and someone who > understands the reasoners better

Re: Need Help on Reasoner

If I understand what's happening here correctly (and someone who understands the reasoners better should correct or confirm this, please!), your one triple "X relation1 X2" is matching _both_ terms in your rule. Nothing in that rule says that ?x2 must be a different thing than ?x3. --- A.

Re: Need Help on Reasoner

Hi, Guys I have the following rule: [rule1: (?x relation1 ?x2), (?x relation1 ?x3) -> (A, B, C)] Normally, this rule should apply to the following model: (X relation1 X2) (X relation1 X3) which it does apply and generate the (A, B, C) triple. However, it also applies to the following model