[Attempto] Using ACE to create SWRL rules

[Norbert E. Fuchs]

Dilvan

Some comments from my side.

On 11 May 2011, at 21:35, Dilvan Moreira wrote:

> ... We actually just need to write rules in ACE and see them translated to OWL/SWRL and back again (we want to use ACE as a language to allow psychiatrists knowledgable in autism but not OWL to edit/view rules). ...

Considering the background of the psychiatrists – that is typical of many domain specialists – why aren't the rules written and maintained in ACE in the first place? Also, the OWL/SWRL ontology probably originated from something expressed in English anyway.

On 12 May 2011, at 15:28, Kaarel Kaljurand wrote:

> ... Looking at your rules I don't actually see how automatically
> converting them into ACE would help the domain expert, because such a
> mapping would still preserve the names e.g. "createOWLThing" which
> come from the domain of OWL:
> 
> ADI-2003(?a), ADI_2003_funccom_cinsges(?a, ?score),
> ADI_2003_interview_date(?a, ?date), SubjectKey(?a, ?subjectID),
> createOWLThing(?phenorecord, ?qv), createOWLThing(?phenorecord,
> ?subjectID) -> 'Phenotype record'(?phenorecord), 'Quantitative
> value'(?qv), subject_has_quality_or_disposition(?phenorecord, 'Current
> conventional or instrumental gestures phenotype'),
> hasValidTime(?phenorecord, ?date), 'has measurement'(?phenorecord,
> ?qv), 'has value'(?qv, ?score), 'is derived from'(?phenorecord,
> "MeasureCurrentConventionalGestures"^^string), subjectId(?phenorecord,
> ?subjectID)

This is a situation that we, predominantly Kaarel, encountered again and again: language constructs traditionally used by OWL/SWRL authors – for examples see above – do not, or do not easily, map to the natural language constructs of ACE. Therefore, we advise people to start with ACE and then translate the ACE ontology into OWL/SWRL. This also means that the ontology should be maintained in ACE. Of course, the problems recur as soon as you imbed an ontology that is only available in OWL/SWRL.

Regards.

   --- nef