using arithmetic functions in custom GraphDB ruleset
I want to add a custom rule to the OWL-2-RL ruleset (builtin_owl2-rl.pie) that establishes a isOppositeDirectionOf object property between vectors that are in opposite direction to each other. I would think it should look something like this:
Id: oppositeDirectionVector_rule
v1 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v1 <cad:x> v1x // example data property for v1x: "1.0"^^xsd:double
v1 <cad:y> v1y
v1 <cad:z> v1z
v2 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v2 <cad:x> -v1x
v2 <cad:y> -v1y
v2 <cad:z> -v1z
-------------------------------
v1 <cad:isOppositeDirectionOf> v2
Without the minuses, this rule does work to create isSameVectorAs object properties.
Is there a way I can use basic arithmetic functions on data properties in rules?
owl rules reasoning graphdb
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
|
show 2 more comments
I want to add a custom rule to the OWL-2-RL ruleset (builtin_owl2-rl.pie) that establishes a isOppositeDirectionOf object property between vectors that are in opposite direction to each other. I would think it should look something like this:
Id: oppositeDirectionVector_rule
v1 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v1 <cad:x> v1x // example data property for v1x: "1.0"^^xsd:double
v1 <cad:y> v1y
v1 <cad:z> v1z
v2 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v2 <cad:x> -v1x
v2 <cad:y> -v1y
v2 <cad:z> -v1z
-------------------------------
v1 <cad:isOppositeDirectionOf> v2
Without the minuses, this rule does work to create isSameVectorAs object properties.
Is there a way I can use basic arithmetic functions on data properties in rules?
owl rules reasoning graphdb
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in.piefiles. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
I understandConstraint, but what is[Cut]and[Context]mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something likeBINDisn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59
|
show 2 more comments
I want to add a custom rule to the OWL-2-RL ruleset (builtin_owl2-rl.pie) that establishes a isOppositeDirectionOf object property between vectors that are in opposite direction to each other. I would think it should look something like this:
Id: oppositeDirectionVector_rule
v1 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v1 <cad:x> v1x // example data property for v1x: "1.0"^^xsd:double
v1 <cad:y> v1y
v1 <cad:z> v1z
v2 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v2 <cad:x> -v1x
v2 <cad:y> -v1y
v2 <cad:z> -v1z
-------------------------------
v1 <cad:isOppositeDirectionOf> v2
Without the minuses, this rule does work to create isSameVectorAs object properties.
Is there a way I can use basic arithmetic functions on data properties in rules?
owl rules reasoning graphdb
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
I want to add a custom rule to the OWL-2-RL ruleset (builtin_owl2-rl.pie) that establishes a isOppositeDirectionOf object property between vectors that are in opposite direction to each other. I would think it should look something like this:
Id: oppositeDirectionVector_rule
v1 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v1 <cad:x> v1x // example data property for v1x: "1.0"^^xsd:double
v1 <cad:y> v1y
v1 <cad:z> v1z
v2 <rdf:type> <cad:Vector>
v2 <cad:x> -v1x
v2 <cad:y> -v1y
v2 <cad:z> -v1z
-------------------------------
v1 <cad:isOppositeDirectionOf> v2
Without the minuses, this rule does work to create isSameVectorAs object properties.
Is there a way I can use basic arithmetic functions on data properties in rules?
owl rules reasoning graphdb
owl rules reasoning graphdb
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
asked Nov 13 '18 at 11:26
benjaminaaronbenjaminaaron
32
32
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in.piefiles. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
I understandConstraint, but what is[Cut]and[Context]mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something likeBINDisn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59
|
show 2 more comments
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in.piefiles. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
I understandConstraint, but what is[Cut]and[Context]mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...
– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something likeBINDisn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in
.pie files. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in
.pie files. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
I understand
Constraint, but what is [Cut] and [Context] mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
I understand
Constraint, but what is [Cut] and [Context] mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something like
BIND isn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something like
BIND isn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You cannot use basic arithmetic functions in the rules. Due performance reasons the GraphDB rule engine works with the internal database identifiers, but not the actual RDF values i.e. internal id 10001 instead of "1"^^xsd:double. Thus, the only supported variable comparison operations are if the two internal identifiers are equal or not equal.
Edit following the comment below: GraphDB's Plugin API is the only mechanism to integrate your code with the database. A plugin can materialize for every statement with ?s <cad:x> ?o predicate a new statement ?s <cad:oppositeX> -?o. Unfortunately, it should handle also the deletes.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is"1"^^xsd:doubleand the other one is the negative version of it"-1"^^xsd:doubleby comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53280025%2fusing-arithmetic-functions-in-custom-graphdb-ruleset%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You cannot use basic arithmetic functions in the rules. Due performance reasons the GraphDB rule engine works with the internal database identifiers, but not the actual RDF values i.e. internal id 10001 instead of "1"^^xsd:double. Thus, the only supported variable comparison operations are if the two internal identifiers are equal or not equal.
Edit following the comment below: GraphDB's Plugin API is the only mechanism to integrate your code with the database. A plugin can materialize for every statement with ?s <cad:x> ?o predicate a new statement ?s <cad:oppositeX> -?o. Unfortunately, it should handle also the deletes.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is"1"^^xsd:doubleand the other one is the negative version of it"-1"^^xsd:doubleby comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
add a comment |
You cannot use basic arithmetic functions in the rules. Due performance reasons the GraphDB rule engine works with the internal database identifiers, but not the actual RDF values i.e. internal id 10001 instead of "1"^^xsd:double. Thus, the only supported variable comparison operations are if the two internal identifiers are equal or not equal.
Edit following the comment below: GraphDB's Plugin API is the only mechanism to integrate your code with the database. A plugin can materialize for every statement with ?s <cad:x> ?o predicate a new statement ?s <cad:oppositeX> -?o. Unfortunately, it should handle also the deletes.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is"1"^^xsd:doubleand the other one is the negative version of it"-1"^^xsd:doubleby comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
add a comment |
You cannot use basic arithmetic functions in the rules. Due performance reasons the GraphDB rule engine works with the internal database identifiers, but not the actual RDF values i.e. internal id 10001 instead of "1"^^xsd:double. Thus, the only supported variable comparison operations are if the two internal identifiers are equal or not equal.
Edit following the comment below: GraphDB's Plugin API is the only mechanism to integrate your code with the database. A plugin can materialize for every statement with ?s <cad:x> ?o predicate a new statement ?s <cad:oppositeX> -?o. Unfortunately, it should handle also the deletes.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
You cannot use basic arithmetic functions in the rules. Due performance reasons the GraphDB rule engine works with the internal database identifiers, but not the actual RDF values i.e. internal id 10001 instead of "1"^^xsd:double. Thus, the only supported variable comparison operations are if the two internal identifiers are equal or not equal.
Edit following the comment below: GraphDB's Plugin API is the only mechanism to integrate your code with the database. A plugin can materialize for every statement with ?s <cad:x> ?o predicate a new statement ?s <cad:oppositeX> -?o. Unfortunately, it should handle also the deletes.
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
edited Nov 15 '18 at 12:19
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
answered Nov 13 '18 at 17:39
vassil_momtchevvassil_momtchev
77837
77837
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is"1"^^xsd:doubleand the other one is the negative version of it"-1"^^xsd:doubleby comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
add a comment |
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is"1"^^xsd:doubleand the other one is the negative version of it"-1"^^xsd:doubleby comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.
– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is
"1"^^xsd:double and the other one is the negative version of it "-1"^^xsd:double by comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
I see, thanks @vassil_momtchev. Do you think there might be a chance to understand these internal ID mappings? Then I could try to use those to trigger something if one value is
"1"^^xsd:double and the other one is the negative version of it "-1"^^xsd:double by comparing their internal IDs instead of actually applying arithmetics.– benjaminaaron
Nov 14 '18 at 15:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53280025%2fusing-arithmetic-functions-in-custom-graphdb-ruleset%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
And I would also like to know if its possible to create new instances (also called individuals in Protégé) via custom rules in
.piefiles. I have only seen corollaries (what's below the ---- line of a rule) being used to establish new links between existing things.– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:35
I understand
Constraint, but what is[Cut]and[Context]mean next to an Axiom (what's above the ---- line of a rule)? I can't seem to google that...– benjaminaaron
Nov 13 '18 at 11:37
Context is just used to restrict the result of one rule to others is input if the share the same context.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:54
The syntax you used is clearly wrong. And given that something like
BINDisn't possible, I don't think its currently possible. Or at least, it's not mentioned in the docs, you could try whether it works nevertheless.– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:56
The only solution I see right now is to use a SPARQL Update query. Clearly, it's unclear how to combine this with the rule inference given that a fix-point iteration is usually done, thus, a single SPARQL query might lead to an incomplete result (very likely in my opinion, but depends on the rest of the data). Running it after the OWL RL materialization, then re-run the OWL RL materialization and compare the number triples in the triple store - that would be my way.
– AKSW
Nov 13 '18 at 13:59