I have an ontology with different type of events.
Therefore I have three classes: A, B, C and a helper class Temp.
I want the reasoner to create a new individual as a subclass of C for every pair of individuals a (rdf:typeOf A) and b (rdf:typeOf B) found. This new Individuals should contain informations about a and b.
In the past I used a jena reasoner with an own rule file to get this result, but now I want to switch over to a standard OWL DL reasoner.
My initial idea is to link a und b such as:
a onto:hasB b
And ad give a the Type Temp with the following restriction for Temp:
hasbB some B
Now I want to create a new individual of type C with a restriction for Temp:
hasC some C
And over this new indivual I can access the informations of a and b.
My Problems are:
How can I get the reasoner to connect a and b?
I don't think the creation of C will work, since its a restriction for Temp, which will never be assigned as a type because of this restriction.
Or am I completly wrong with my approach?
Edit:
To clarify my goal with a better exmple:
I have an ontology with different type of events.
My goal is to connect certain individuals (events) which belong together by forming a new individual (event) describing this relation with the help of a reasoner.
E.g.:
I read an event (individual) which describes an "Alarm" (type) into the ontology.
I read an event (individual) which discribes a "PowerOutage" (type) into the ontology.
These Individuals aren't related at all at this moment.
Now I want a reasoner to create a new event (individual) with the type "PowerManipulation". In fact I want an individual with the type "PowerManipulation" created for every pair (which isn't connected, yet) of individuals with the type "PowerOutage" and "Alarm" found. These new individuals should have references (properties) to the individual which caused their creation (an "Alarm" and a "PowerOutage").
Ontology before the reasoning:
(alarm1 rdf:type "Alarm")
(out1 rdf:type "PowerOutage")
What I want the ontology to look like after the reasoning
(alarm1 rdf:type "Alarm")
(out1 rdf:type "PowerOutage")
(man1 rdf:type "PowerManipulation")
(man1 ont:hasRealtadInd alarm1)
(man1 ont:hasRealtedInd out1)
Priviously I used Jena rules and the Jena reasoner to accomplish this task.
But I want to switch over to a standard OWL DL reasoner.
Is it possible to accomplish this task with basic restrictions?
Or do I need SWRL rules, or SPIN (see Williams answer below)?
You can do this with SPIN constructors quite easily and SPIN inserts.
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-modeling-20110222/#spin-rules-construct
http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/SUBM-spin-modeling-20110222/#spin-rules-update
SPIN and OWL can live happily together. Take a look at the groovy library that has extensions for both:
https://github.com/williamgreenly/lescot
Example below:
def model = new GroovyRdfModel()
model.add(""" some turtle data """)
model.add(""" some OWL rules """)
model.add(""" some SPIN rules """)
def inferredModelByOWLReasoning = model.owl()
def inferredModelBySPINRules = model.spin()
Related
I have an ontology that contains two classes (course,lesson) the course has a data properties called code of type string
How to get all individuals from specific class with specific data properties value
here is a screenshot
The general pattern is something like this:
SELECT ?individual
WHERE { ?individual a <uri-of-specific-class> ;
<uri-of-property> ?propertyValue .
FILTER(STR(?propertyValue) = "expected value")
}
You will need to adapt this with the details of your specific ontology (the URIs of your class names and properties), but it shows the general approach. I would also suggest that you try out a SPARQL tutorial, there's several good ones online for you to find.
my ontology about social network. And we have simple SWRL rules two people(?p1,?p2) workInOrg Org(?org) => colleagueOf(?p1,?p2) and if thier colleague, one people workInOrg => the other person also works in that Org. I also build OWL Axioms but it cant take affect on Graphdb. Another try is that i wrote a custom rule, but Graphdb only allow to choose one Rule (In my case "owrl2-rl") and my custom rule only take affect when combining on this rule OWL2-RL. Is there a way to use combine rules and write rule effienctly?
SHACL validation is good. Does graphdb has OWL constraint validation ??? (ex: domain-range validation ?)
Thanks.
Damyan's comment above provides the answer
One can do this also with OWL2 RL and property chains (see https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#OWL_2_RL in https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#OWL_2_RL). This would not require custom rules, but inference will be a bit slower
This is how it can work:
:worksIn owl:inverseOf :employerOf
:colleagueOf owl:propertyChainAxiom ( :worksIn :employerOf ) .
:worksIn owl:propertyChainAxiom ( :colleagueOf :worksIn ) .
Hi i have made an ontology in protege 4.3 for users , suppose 1 of my ontology subclass of class user are:
1-"Interest" , and class "interest" have subclasses: "onlineGaming","onlineMovie","onlineshoping",... and every subclass has individual: everyday,onceAweek,onceAmonth)
and i have 3 datatype property for every user: (internetspeed,internetTraffic,Price)
data gathered based on a questionnaire
i just need to infer from this ontology how important this 3 datatype property factors is for internet users
i need to make some SWRL rules in protege to Infer user interest weight , for example if a user do onlineMovie everyday add a +3 to internetTraffic dataproperty.
user(?u) ^ hasOnlineMovieInterest(?u , everyday)-> add +3 to user(?u,InternetTraffic)
user(?u) ^ hasOnlineGamingInterest(?u , OnceAweek) and hasOnlineMovieInterest(?u , everyday)-> add +2 to user(?u,internetSpeed)
how should i write this properly in SWRL rules?
and my second question is how can i have the value of this 3 datatype property for every user in sparql and save the result?
Thanks for your help
First of all; it is not clear what you are doing / which technology using, etc., please consider clarifying your question. Moreover, the conceptual made you developed doesn't seem sound. Are you sure this is the best way to represent the information you want? For example, why would a UserInterest be a subClassOf User? I think you mean that UserInterest and UserInterestRate are ranges for an object property that connect User to them, i.e., hasInterest rdfs:domain User and hasInterest rdfs:range UserInterest.
Coming to your questions, do you use Protege? If you use it you can implement these SWRL rules using the SWRL tab in Protege.
After you have implemented this correctly, you can simply use some SPARQL query similar to:
select ?user ?r1 ?r2 ?r3 Where {
?user rdf:type yourNamespacePrefix:User.
?user yourNamespacePrefix:rate1 ?r1.
?user yourNamespacePrefix:rate2 ?r2.
?user yourNamespacePrefix:rate3 ?r3.
}
For my current project I need to load a dataset and different ontologies and expose everything as linked data using Fuseki with TDB and Pubby. Pubby will take a data set from a single location and create URIs based on that location, therefore if we need multiple different locations (as in the case with 2–3 separate ontologies), that would be easy to do with Pubby by adding another data set.
The concept of dataset seems to also apply to Fuseki.
Essentially I will need to expose three types of URIs:
www.mywebsite.com/project/data
www.mywebsite.com/project/data/structure
www.mywebsite.com/project/ontology
In order to create such URIs with Pubby 0.3.3. you will have to specify lines like these:
conf:dataset [
conf:sparqlEndpoint <sparql_endpoint_url_ONE>;
conf:sparqlDefaultGraph <sparql_default_graph_name_ONE>;
conf:datasetBase <http://mywebsite.com/project/>;
conf:datasetURIPattern "(data)/.*";
(...)
]
Each data set specified in Pubby will take its data from a certain URL (typically a SPARQL endpoint).
For ontologies you will have a dataset that uses the second a datasetURIPattern like this one:
conf:dataset [
conf:sparqlEndpoint <sparql_endpoint_url_TWO>;
conf:sparqlDefaultGraph <sparql_default_graph_name_TWO>;
conf:datasetBase <http://mywebsite.com/project/>;
conf:datasetURIPattern "(ontology)/.*";
(...)
]
As you can see the differences would be at the following: conf:sparqlEndpoint (the SPARQL endpoint), conf:sparqlDefaultGraph (the default Graph), conf:datasetURIPattern (needed for creating the actual URIs with Pubby).
It is not however clear to me how can I have separate URIs for the data sets when using Fuseki. When using Sesame, for example, I just create two different repositories and this trick works like charm when publishing data with Pubby. Not immediately clear with
The examples from the official Fuseki documentation present a single dataset (read-only or not, etc), but none of them seem to present such a scenario. There is no immediate example where there is a clear separation between the TBox and the ABox, even though this is a fundamental principle of Linked Data (see Keeping ABox and TBox Split).
As far as I understand this should be possible, but how? Also is it correct that the TBox and ABox can be reunited under a single SPARQL endpoint later by using (tdb:unionDefaultGraph true ;).
The dataset concept is not unique to Jena Fuseki; it's quite central in SPARQL. A dataset is a collection of named graphs and a default graph. The prefix of a URI has nothing to do with where triples about it are stored (whether in a named graph or in the default graph).
It sounds like you want to keep your ABox triples in one named graph and your TBox triples in another. Then, if the default graph is the union of the named graphs, you'll see the contents of both in the default graph. You can do that in Fuseki.
I am trying to write a query
Hospitals and hasNameWithWords value "center"^^string
This query returns me the instances that has the hospitals that has "center" in its name in Protege 4.2 with FACT++ reasoner as well as Hermit reasoner
but when i input the same query in the OWL-API's DL Query Example thats available in the website
http://sourceforge.net/p/owlapi/code/ci/aef6981535f07a2d0d44c394b9f4d5415f36025a/tree/contract/src/test/java/org/coode/owlapi/examples/DLQueryExample.java
I don't get any result.
But it gives me result when i write simple queries such as
Hospitals
Is it because the reasoner in the code is not able to make the inference?
What other reasoner would be better?
The class you use as example (DLQueryExample.java) relies on an OWL-API built-in structural reasoner (OWLReasonerFactory reasonerFactory = new StructuralReasonerFactory();).
This type of reasoner is fairly simple and is not suited for complex queries as yours. It can however provide answers on the class hierarchy: This is why you get some results with the straightforward query Hospitals.
What you need to do is to set your code to either use Hermit or FACT++. I give the example with Hermit:
Download HermiT jar file and add it to the class path of your project.
In your class, replace the line OWLReasonerFactory reasonerFactory = new StructuralReasonerFactory(); by: OWLReasonerFactory reasonerFactory = new Reasoner.ReasonerFactory();. You should have to import org.semanticweb.HermiT.Reasoner in order to make it work.
We just replaced the default reasoner by HermiT. The rest of the code should stay the same and your query should now work.
You could try FaCT++ and Pellet and compare speed, etc...