1. That rule is unreadable again - at least for me. See how it is shown to the mailing list: http://jena.markmail.org/thread/akjkia6mysqhsq2i 2. Don't show the Java concatenated string but the rule as it's printed to the command line/console. Especially hereby one can see trivial syntax errors 3. As Dave said, it's totally unclear why you're always omitting obvious details - what kind of exception? 4. The rule doesn't make sense, since the second term of the premise doesn't contain any variable. It's not clear what you want to achieve here.
(?x rdf:type :MasterStudent ) (:MasterStudent rdfs:subClassOf :Student ) -> (?x rdf:type :Student ) That rule would be covered by the rdf:type/rdfs:subClassOf rule in RDFS: (?x rdf:type ?C) (?C rdfs:subClassOf ?D) -> (?x rdf:type ?D) But in your rule the second term doesn't contribute to the reasoning process. The result would be the same with (?x rdf:type :MasterStudent ) -> (?x rdf:type :Student ) > On 08/03/17 13:29, kumar rohit wrote: >> Is there any problem in this rule. I am getting error here. > > What error? > > It is much easier for us to help if you say explicitly what went wrong! > >> I used jena >> generic rule reasoner so is it sufficient also for executing rdfs sub >> class >> rules? >> >> *[rule1:(?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type >> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> >> http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#MasterStudent >> <http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#MasterStudent>) "* >> * + "( http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#MasterStudent >> <http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#MasterStudent>) >> http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf >> <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf> >> http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#Student >> <http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#Student> )"* >> >> >> * + " -> (?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type >> <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type> >> http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#Student >> <http://www.semanticweb.org/t/ontologies#Student> )]"* > > Almost impossible to read but at a glance it looks OK. > > 1. Please post messages as plain text. Your emailer has done horrid > things to the URIs. > > 2. The rule would be much easier to read if you use prefixes instead > of writing out the URIs longhand. > > 3. It's also possible to use the standard generic RDFS rules. You > don't have to write out your own special case rules for each > subClassOf relationship. > > Dave > > -- Lorenz Bühmann AKSW group, University of Leipzig Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center
