W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:41:28 +0000
Message-ID: <476BDEA8.6030008@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> Hmmm, this is tricky, harder than I thought.

Michael Schneider came to my rescue!

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0261

Simplifying his comment.

> 
> Some examples. I'm struggling as to the discussion.
> 
> 
> Example 1:
> Consistent:
This is consistent in OWL 1.1 DL, but inconsistent in OWL 1.0 Full.
So this presents a difficulty with OWL 1.1 Full semantics since we 
either have to break compatibility with OWL 1.0 Full or OWL 1.1 DL, both 
of which are important.

> [punning on eg:p]
> 
> eg:a rdf:type owl:Thing .
> eg:a eg:p   eg:a .
> eg:p rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
> eg:p rdf:type owl:DataProperty .
> _:r rdf:type owl:DataRestriction .
> _:r owl:maxCardinality "0"^^xsd:int .
> _:r owl:onProperty eg:p .
> eg:a rdf:type _:r .
> 

In OWL 1.0 Full:

Since eg:p is a DataProperty eg:a is a literal, and has at least one 
literal eg:p value, and is hence not in the restriction _:r.

So I retract my earlier agreement with Peter of not seeing a problem.
(Well I didn't see it)

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 15:41:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT