RE: Some advice on inferring negated properties

Sorry for the line breaking in the message below (if yours looks the
same as mine). I'm not sure what happened.

Tim Swanson
Semantic Arts, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Swanson, Tim
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 1:28 PM
> To: Bijan Parsia
> Cc: Matt Williams; Owl Dev
> Subject: RE: Some advice on inferring negated properties
> 
> 
> Bijan,
> 
> 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 19:27:31 UTC