Re: How we say Same literals

On 27 Dec 2014 12:03, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> Here is what I mean
> When I add a subClassOfAxiom such :
>
> Class: person
>     SubClassOf:
>         hasIdentifier value 2
>
> However, we already have other axioms that:
>
> DataProperty: hasIdentifier
>     Characteristics:
>         Functional
>
> Individual: leila
>     Types:
>         person
>
> Facts:
>      hasIdentifier  "2"^^xsd:string,
>
>
> How can I formally explain to reader that we have "different literals"
that with those axioms introduce inconsistency.
>

I'm not sure about the formal bit, but an error message that I consider
clear would be "multiple distinct values for functional property
hasIdentifier for individual leila. Only one allowed."

Formally I'd probably say something about max cardinality of functional
properties is always 1 but found 2 - but I'm not good at formal stuff.
I.

>
> Le Samedi 27 décembre 2014 1h52, Bijan Parsia <
bijan.parsia@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
>
>
> There is no way, and no need in a sense, to assert data value equality..
Literals have built in identity semantics and you cannot alter those
equality relations.
>
> In your specific case, same datatype and same lexical form always yield
an identity (and thus an equality). But you can have many lexical forms for
the same value.
>
> You can, of course, test for equality, though you have to do a bit of
work.
>
> If you have a functional data property (eg P) then you can make aboxes to
test eg
>
> x P "1"^^xsd:Integer.
> x P "001"^^xsd:Integer.
>
> Will be consist whereas:
>
> x P "1"^^xsd:Integer.
> x P "10"^^xsd:Integer.
>
> Will not.
>
> On Dec 26, 2014, at 18:35, "Leila Bayoudhi" <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr>
wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> How to say formally same lierals (as we say sameIndividuals axiom):
>> can we say?:
>> ·         The data value of lt is equal to the data value of lti,
 having then identical lexical form and  the value spaces of their
datatypes are not disjoint.
>> thx
>>
>>
>
>