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

RE: Some advice on inferring negated properties

From: Swanson, Tim <tim.swanson@semanticarts.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:28:25 -0600
Message-ID: <51F1B258494D5A4488C95F40E55F35D53E6386@exchsrvr.semanticarts.local>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Matt Williams" <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>


Thanks again. I think you're right, the misunderstanding goes back to
talking at cross-purposes. I have just one more question.

> > (Admittedly, this is not the same thing as "directly" checking for
> the
> > negative entailment, since it relies on the user's understanding of
> > OWL
> > semantics to make the jump from membership in the above class to the
> > negative entailment.)
> It's not a negative entailment (which for me means a *failure* to
> entail) but an entailment of a negation, but yes. For Matt's purpose
> this might be fine. OWL 1.1 statement entailment shall be added to
> Pellet in due course (esp to support SPARQL). One could, of course,
> write such a wrapper.

"negative entailment" = "failure to entail" (i.e. still unknown in the
open world)
"entailment of a negation" = "entailing that something is untrue" (i.e.
known to be false)

Is this the accepted language? (If so, I need to re-write some of our
in-house documents to comply with it.)

> Hope this helps.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:25:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC