- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 20:07:28 +0100
- To: "naudts guido <naudts_vannoten" <naudts_vannoten@yahoo.com>
- Cc: cwm <public-cwm-talk@w3.org>
[...]
> Take the triples:
> (1)
> :x owl:oneOf (:a :b :c).
> :d a :x.
> This is a clear inconsistency and should be detected
> of course.
there is no "unique names assumption",
and it could be the case that
:d owl:sameAs :b.
a premise that we actually consider inconsistent is
?C owl:oneOf ?L. ?X a ?C. ?L :notItem ?X.
with
rdf:nil :notItem ?X.
{?S rdf:first ?A. ?A owl:differentFrom ?X. ?S rdf:rest ?B. ?B :notItem ?X}
=> {?S :notItem ?X}.
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 21 March 2004 08:08:09 UTC