W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

Re: General discussion for TC Wednesday 2008-04-21

From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:56:08 +0100
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D596DA40-DB86-4CAA-B176-0B127C352A42@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:37, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 22 Apr 2008, at 10:15, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:46 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>> Disjunction and class expressions leap to mind as things that  
>>> would need consideration.
>> Do you have a quick example to get me thinking about this?
> It all depends on how keys get on classes. If we are punning (and  
> thus can infer keys), then just make your class and instance of  
> having key1 or key2. Similarly, can keys be asserted on anonymous  
> classes, i.e., class expressions? What does that mean?

here is another example:

ClassKey keyPropX

subClassOf ClassA SomeValuesFrom keyPropX OneOf("17"^^xsd:integer  

subClassOf ClassB SomeValuesFrom keyPropX OneOf("17"^^xsd:integer  

subClassOf ClassC SomeValuesFrom keyPropX OneOf("17"^^xsd:integer  

This implies that either
ClassA and ClassB are identical and thus equivalent, or that
ClassB and ClassC are identical and thus equivalent, or that
ClassA and ClassC are identical and thus equivalent...now we have have  
real trouble with these since we cannot handle disjunctions of  
equivalences easily...

Cheers, Uli

> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 09:56:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC