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

ISSUE-123 (QCR in OWL-R-Full): Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 04:25:03 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080503042503.0A7F36B62B@kent.w3.org>


ISSUE-123 (QCR in OWL-R-Full): Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/

Raised by: Ivan Herman
On product: 

The current (2008-05-02) OWL-R Full rule set has some rules for handling a minimal version of cardinality constraints. Similar level of support for QCR-s is currently missing; for symmetry the following two rules could be added to the rule set:

T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p)
T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c)
T(?u, ?p, ?y)
T(?u, rdf:type, ?x)
T(?y, rdf:type, ?c)

=>

false

-------------------------------------------------------------------

T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p)
T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c)
T(?u, ?p, ?y1)
T(?u, ?p, ?y2)
T(?u, rdf:type, ?x)
T(?y1, rdf:type, ?c)
T(?y2, rdf:type, ?c)

=>

T(?y1, owl:sameAs, ?y2)

I am not sure whether this is possible to add to OWL-R DL, though, without distorting the equivalence theorem between OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 04:25:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 3 May 2008 04:25:34 GMT