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 13:30:03 -0600
Message-ID: <51F1B258494D5A4488C95F40E55F35D53E6387@exchsrvr.semanticarts.local>
To: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:07:18 UTC