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

Re: Question on DL negation

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:54:02 +0000
Message-ID: <45EEE01A.90903@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>, rhm@PioneerCA.com, matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk, semantic-web@w3.org, public-owl-dev@w3.org


I believe there is a whole section of the OWL Test Cases dedicated to 
this construction.

Each of the harder DL tests that was susceptible to this approach was so 
transformed into OWL Lite!

Jeremy


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> On Mar 7, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
> [snip]
>> Unluckily, I cannot check this with the navigator, because there is no 
>> such "concept disjointness" checkbox. It seems that all I can do is 
>> comparing the complexity classes of OWL-Lite and OWL-DL, which is an 
>> upper-language of OWL-Lite+disj:
>>
>>    * Complexity( OWL-Lite )  = ExpTime (complete)
> [snip]
> 
> It stays EXPTIME-complete since you can polynomially encode class 
> disjointness in OWL-Lite. I was going to gin up an example using min1 
> and max0 on some dummy property, but the I found it in an email:
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0259>
> 
> (At the bottom.)
> 
> """ > > [1] An example construct, which Jeremy credits to Ian Horrocks, 
> is as follows.
>  > > >
>  > > > Given a definition of a class C:
>  > > >    Class(C complete <expr1>)
>  > > >
>  > > > The let P be a property which is not used elsewhere and define:
>  > > >    Class(C complete restriction(minCardinality(P, 1))
>  > > >    Class(C-co complete restriction(maxCardinality(P, 0))"""
> 
> (Er..it would have been less work to just recreate it, but I was looking 
> for a better overall explanation)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 15:55:01 GMT

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