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

Re: Some advice on inferring negated properties

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 20:28:06 +0100
Message-Id: <E55F5368-E94F-46A8-97D6-BA55AC762AEB@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Swanson, Tim" <tim.swanson@semanticarts.com>, Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Aug 16, 2007, at 8:20 PM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

[snip]
> Paste that into the web form (v. old version of Pellet) and you get  
> an inconsistency.
>
> If you replace the last line with "ex:b rdf:type owl:Thing" (to get  
> ex:b into the signature), this will entail:

Cut and paste error.

In fact the entailment is the other way around, i.e., if you make it  
that ex:a can have *NO* Ps, e.g.,

> ex:a rdf:type [a owl:Restriction;
>                  owl:allValuesFrom owl:Nothing;
>                  owl:onProperty ex:P]]

Then add some individual to the signature:
	ex:b rdf:type owl:Thing

You entail the class assertion:

	ex:a rdf:type [ owl:complementOf [a owl:Restriction;
                  owl:hasValue ex:b;
                  owl:onProperty ex:P]].

(I got it correct in the command line example.)

When Pellet supports OWL 1.1 in entailments, you will also be able to  
write the NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion directly.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2007 19:28:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT