Re: Need Help on Reasoner

[Victor Guo <gu...@gmail.com>]

You are right. The problem is solved by adding notEqual(?x2, ?x3) to the
reasoner terms. Thanks for the help!
I thought ?x2 and ?x3 would by default be treated as different values, but
I was wrong.

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:23 AM, A. Soroka <aj...@virginia.edu> wrote:

> There may very well be a better way to do this, but to start with you
> might be able to use the built-in primitive notEqual(?x,?y). [1]  That
> should compare URI-nodes as you would expect, by their URIs. Of course,
> it's up to you to enforce a temporary and scoped UNA inside your graph. If
> (as is the general case) different URIs can point to the same thing than
> this kind of syntax-based check doesn't work.
>
> Maybe you can say a little more about your use case? Are you trying to
> trace through chains of properties?
>
> ---
> A. Soroka
> The University of Virginia Library
>
> [1]
> https://jena.apache.org/documentation/inference/index.html#builtin-primitives
>
> > On May 31, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Victor Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Soroka. That's also what I suspect. Anyone know how to make two
> > variables like ?x2 and ?x3 different in a rule?
> >
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:14 AM, A. Soroka <aj...@virginia.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> If I understand what's happening here correctly (and someone who
> >> understands the reasoners better should correct or confirm this,
> please!),
> >> your one triple "X relation1 X2" is matching _both_ terms in your rule.
> >> Nothing in that rule says that ?x2 must be a different thing than ?x3.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> A. Soroka
> >> The University of Virginia Library
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 31, 2016, at 8:09 AM, Victor Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi, Guys
> >>>   I have the following rule:
> >>>
> >>> [rule1: (?x relation1 ?x2), (?x relation1 ?x3) -> (A, B, C)]
> >>>
> >>> Normally, this rule should apply to the following model:
> >>>
> >>> (X relation1 X2)
> >>> (X relation1 X3)
> >>>
> >>> which it does apply and generate the (A, B, C) triple. However, it also
> >>> applies to the following model and generates (A, B, C):
> >>>
> >>> (X relation1 X2)
> >>>
> >>> which seems to me it shouldn't.
> >>>
> >>> Am I understanding the reasoner syntax wrong?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Victor Guo <gu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi, Guys
> >>>>   I have the following rule:
> >>>>
> >>>> [rule1: (?x relation1 ?x2), (?x relation1 ?x3) -> (A, B, C)]
> >>>>
> >>>> Normally, this rule should apply to the following model:
> >>>>
> >>>> (X relation1 X2)
> >>>> (X relation1 X3)
> >>>>
> >>>> which it does apply and generate the (A, B, C) triple. However, it
> also
> >>>> applies to the following model and generates (A, B, C):
> >>>>
> >>>> (X relation1 X2)
> >>>>
> >>>> which seems to me it shouldn't.
> >>>>
> >>>> Am I understanding the reasoner syntax wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Confidential
> >>> Copyright 2015 BeulahWorks, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
> >>> All contents included in this email, including email title, body, and
> >>> attachments,etc. are proprietary to BeulahWorks, LLC.
> >>> Contact: David A. Nevill  email: dnevill@beulahinc.com
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Confidential
> > Copyright 2015 BeulahWorks, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
> > All contents included in this email, including email title, body, and
> > attachments,etc. are proprietary to BeulahWorks, LLC.
> > Contact: David A. Nevill  email: dnevill@beulahinc.com
>
>


-- 
Confidential
Copyright 2015 BeulahWorks, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
All contents included in this email, including email title, body, and
attachments,etc. are proprietary to BeulahWorks, LLC.
Contact: David A. Nevill  email: dnevill@beulahinc.com