Error in rdfs rule

Discussion:

Error in rdfs rule

kumar rohit

2017-03-08 13:29:29 UTC

Is there any problem in this rule. I am getting error here. 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> )]"*

* Reasoner reasoner2 = new
GenericRuleReasoner(Rule.parseRules(rule)); InfModel inf =
ModelFactory.createInfModel(reasoner2, model);*

Dave Reynolds

2017-03-08 23:01:18 UTC

Permalink

Post by kumar rohit
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!

Post by kumar rohit
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 B.

2017-03-09 07:14:13 UTC

Permalink

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 )

Post by Dave Reynolds

Post by kumar rohit
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!

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

kumar rohit

2017-03-09 08:15:47 UTC

Permalink

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. <

Post by Lorenz B.
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 )
(?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 )

Post by Dave Reynolds

Post by kumar rohit
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!

rdf-syntax-ns#type

Post by Dave Reynolds

Post by kumar rohit
<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 BÃŒhmann
AKSW group, University of Leipzig
Group: http://aksw.org - semantic web research center

Lorenz B.

2017-03-09 08:46:53 UTC

Permalink

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/

Post by kumar rohit
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. <

Post by Dave Reynolds

Post by kumar rohit
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!

rdf-syntax-ns#type

Post by Dave Reynolds

Post by kumar rohit
<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

kumar rohit

2017-03-09 09:10:38 UTC

Permalink

The rule error is

Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0"
com.hp.hpl.jena.reasoner.rulesys.Rule$ParserException: Triple with 1 nodes!

The rule is

[rule1:(?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
#MasterStudent) "

+ "(#MasterStudent http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
#Student )"

+ " -> (?x http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type
#Student )]";

On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 11:46 AM, Lorenz B. <

Post by Lorenz B.
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/

Post by kumar rohit
Thanks a lot Dave, Lorenz, so it means I dont have to write these rules

and

Post by kumar rohit
it will be inferred automatically? How it will be executed,? I have

default

Post by kumar rohit
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. <

here.