[Attempto] algebraic expressions in ACE - continued

[Kaarel Kaljurand]

Hi Jean-Marc,

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 17:24, Jean-Marc Vanel <jeanmarc.vanel at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/6/14 Kaarel Kaljurand <kaljurand at gmail.com>:
>
> However, for the algebraic expressions, the worm in the fruit
> drs_to_owlswrl, not only in owlfss_owlrdfxml.pl .
> More precisely, I updated
> ape/utils/owlswrl/implication_to_swrl.pl
> so that I-variable/1 predicates are added recursively around DRS/SWRL
> variables.
> Now the OWL FSS looks good:
>       Consequent(
>          description(
>             Class(owl:Thing)
>             I-variable(6)
>          )
>          description(
>             ObjectProperty(:has-surface)
>             I-variable(1)
>             I-variable(6)
>          )
>          builtIn(multiply, I-variable($VAR(6)), I-variable($VAR(2)),
> I-variable($VAR(4)))
>       )
> I commited all my modifications here on Subversion (same directory
> structure) :
> http://deductions.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/deductions/ape/

Thanks, that's very useful. I'll try to merge these (and any future)
changes into
the Attempto repository once I'm back from the trip.
(At some point the APE code should go into a public repository
to make such contributions easier to manage.)

> This is work in progress; I get an SGML exception while writing the OWL/RDF
> file.

The problem might be that your XML-term (i.e. element/3)
contains non-atomic terms (e.g. variables, or complex terms like $VAR(1))
where it shouldn't. In this case the SWI XML-writer throws an exception.

> I think I'll go on hacking the existing (and brushing my rusted Prolog),
> while also paving the way with Vangelis for using his tools. I'm not sure at
> all that his predicates for OWL are similar to ACE's, not to speak about his
> rule representation.

Yes, they are probably different, e.g. I think he uses subClassOf instead
of 'SubClassOf', etc. I don't strongly feel that these terms should have
names that start with a capital letter, so this can be changed to
make the alignment possible. ;)

The rule representation of ACE->OWL/SWRL should change anyway.
If I understand correctly then the representation that is now supported by
OWL-API v3 is described in this paper:

A Syntax for Rules in OWL 2, Birte Glimm, Matthew Horridge, Bijan
Parsia and Peter Patel-Schneider. OWLED 2009.

So it makes sense to output that format.

--
kaarel