That doesn't solve your original problem, please provide the error! RDFS reasoning is enough to cover that kind if inference, please read the documentation (as usual) [1]
[1] https://jena.apache.org/documentation/inference/ > Thanks a lot Dave, Lorenz, so it means I dont have to write these rules and > it will be inferred automatically? How it will be executed,? I have default > model with no parameters and then the inferred model. > Should I pass the "OntModelSpec.OWL_MEM_MICRO_RULE_INF " to the default > model? > > On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Lorenz B. < > buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> >> -- Lorenz Bühmann AKSW group, University of Leipzig Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center
