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

Re: IFP and datatype properties

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:30:01 -0500
Message-Id: <083A3E2C-12D1-4C8F-B4FE-6B283E6ECF03@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

What i have done, for non-compound keys, is create a uri with the  
value embedded as a string, use and object property and make that  
inverse functional.

Works well for the simple cases.

-Alan



On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> A feature of OWL Full that is fairly widely used, but not in DL is  
> the ability to declare a datatype property as inverse functional.
> I seemed to remember that the reason for excluding it from DL was  
> to do with complexity rather than decidability; and that there was  
> a horrocks paper on the topic.
> I can't find such a paper. Any pointers please?
>
> Also:
>
> Given an ontology A, which would be in DL except that property p is  
> declared as both inverse functional and a datatype property, and  
> for simplicity, p is not subPropertyOf or equivalentProperty to any  
> other property, we can construct an ontology B as follows:
>
> a) replace every triple
>         a p d .
>    with
>         a p' data:d .
>
> b) replace every hasValue d restriction on p, with a hasValue  
> data:d restriction on p'.
>
> c) for each data:d1 and data:d2 URIs so introduced with data:d1 !=  
> data:d2 add
>     data:d1 owl:differentFrom data:d2 .
>
> Then B is an OWL DL ontology and is consistent iff A is consistent.
>
> Since B is only polynomially more complex than A, it would seem  
> that this is tractable.
>
> Bold assertion: this generalizes to all use of IFP and DP.
> Comments?
> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 16:30:53 GMT

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