[Mulgara-general] Question about KRULE

Paul Gearon gearon at ieee.org
Mon Oct 27 14:08:48 UTC 2008


On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Rune Stilling <subs at rdfined.dk> wrote:
> Hi - One question about KRULE.
>
> Let's say I have the following ontology:
>
> rdf:type(Tag, Class).
> rdf:type(tagInstance1, Tag).
> rdf:type(tagInstance2, Tag).

You'd probably want to put domains on those labels. I've been thinking
about recognizing certain labels and giving them default domains (so
"type" would become "rdf:type" automatically), but as yet I haven't
done that.

> I then create some rules using KRULE:
>
> rdf:type(derivedTagInstance, Tag) :- rdf:type(X, Tag).
> rdfs:label(derivedTagInstance, L) :- rdf:type(X, Tag), rdfs:label(X, L).
>
> What I would like the system to do is to create two new instances of
> the Tag class with labels copied from tagInstance1 and tagInstance2
> (one label on one instance). Currently I get only one instance but
> two labels on derivedTagInstance.
>
> 1) Is there any way to let the Krule generate new ressource ID's?

As it stands, no. This is feasible, but it's not on the roadmap. Do
you need it to be?

> 2) Is there any way to connect rule one and rule two so that the
> system is able to create two distinct instances with two distinct
> labels?

Actually, they're not connected at all, so if the capability existed
to create new instances, then you'd automatically get two of them.
Connecting these rules would only be needed if you wanted to create a
new instance in one of them, and re-use that instance in the other.

> I know I'm probably pushing it, but maybe there is some way to do this?

Not yet, but all things are possible. It's a matter of priorities. Do
you have enough of a use case to convince my boss?  :-)

Regards,
Paul



More information about the Mulgara-general mailing list