W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: OWL DL extension question

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 19:40:12 +0100
Message-Id: <344DC6A8-20D1-45AE-A415-A4C996AF61F9@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, Evan Wallace <evan.wallace@nist.gov>, Yevgeny Kazakov <ykazakov@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: <conrad.bock@nist.gov>

On 11 Apr 2007, at 18:54, Conrad Bock wrote:

>
> Evren,
>
>>> Was wondering if anyone is looking into whether this fragment can
>>> be added tractably to OWL DL (1.0):
>
>>>   (forall (x y z)
>>>      (if (and (P x y)
>>>               (R x z))
>>>          (S y z)))
>>>
>>> For example, the uncles of my children include all my brothers
>>> (P=children, R=brothers, S=uncles).
>
>> You can turn the antecedent into a property chain using the
>> inverse of P
>> and then use the standard complex role inclusions of OWL 1.1 as:
>
>> SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(InverseObjectPrope
>> rty(children)
>> brothers) uncles)
>
> Great, thanks.
>
>> provided that the restrictions described at [1] are not violated.
>
> Do you happen to know if anyone has shown these to be the maximal
> restrictions, ie, any loosening of them will cause undecidability?  In
> particular, is the regularity restriction maximal?

Yevgeny Kazakov has done some work on this. He has shown that the  
restriction is not maximal (which is pretty obvious), and I believe  
that he has devised an alternative and strictly more general  
restriction. I have a feeling that there is even an undecidability  
result related to maximality, but I might have imagined that :-).

Yevgeny can no doubt tell you more.

Regards,

Ian


>
> Conrad
>
>
> PS: I assume the first set of bullets are disjunctive, but the text
> doesn't say this explicitly.
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 18:40:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT