W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > December 2009

thanks for owl:propertyDisjointWith and owl:propertyChainAxiom and the OWL 2 primer

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 11:18:03 -0600
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <1261070283.3504.17427.camel@pav.lan>
The primer is great; I tend to think in turtle,
so having the option to look at it right next
to the other syntaxes is a _big_ help.
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-primer-20091027/
  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-primer/

I think I've invented owl:propertyDisjointWith 6 or 7
times in the context of various projects... I tend
to call it opposite, but now that the semantics
are standardized, I can stop thinking about the name.

I had fun using it last night to show that certain
situations are contradictory:

{ ?X [ owl:propertyDisjointWith ?P ] ?Y.
  ?X ?P ?Z .
} => { ?Y owl:differentFrom ?Z. }.

cyc:temporallyDisjoint owl:propertyDisjointWith
cyc:temporallyIntersects.


...

:Bob 
cyc:temporallyDisjoint <paper1>.
:Bob 
cyc:temporallyIntersects <paper1>.


=>

:Bob owl:differentFrom :Bob.


Likewise owl:propertyChainAxiom ; the "Axiom" on the end
seems a little redundant, but hey... it works!

{ ?P owl:propertyChainAxiom (?Q ?R).
  ?x ?Q [ ?R ?y ].
} => { ?x ?P ?y }.

# test case
uncle owl:propertyChainAxiom (parent brother).
sue parent [ brother bill ].

=>

sue uncle bill.

For context, see some work in progress:

  A Model of Authority in the Web
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/story.html

including some N3 proofs using the rules above,
which I put in
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/owl2.n3

The Makefile shows how the pieces fit together.
  http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/dj9/Makefile


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 17 December 2009 17:18:06 GMT