- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 15:48:46 -0000
- To: "'Mike Smith'" <msmith@clarkparsia.com>, "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, O' should definitely be entailed from O in the Direct Semantics. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Smith > Sent: 15 January 2009 15:29 > To: W3C OWL Working Group > Subject: The definition of entailment in the Direct Semantics document > > > OWL WG, > > I believe, after review of test case [WebOnt-Class-005], that the > definition of entailment [1] in the OWL 2 Direct Semantics document > differs from the definition used by the WebOnt WG. The entailment > test case is repeated below. In WebOnt, this was a negative > entailment test (i.e., O did not entail O'). I believe that with the > current definitions, it would be a positive entailment test. If the > group agrees with this analysis, we can accept the change in > definition or tweak the Direct Semantics document to match the > previous (WebOnt) meaning. > > O: > ClassAssertion( owl:Thing x ) > > O': > Declaration( Class( C ) ) > ClassAssertion( UnionOf( C ComplementOf( C ) ) x ) > > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Direct_Semantics#Inference_Problems > [WebOnt-Class-005] > http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-Class-005
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2009 15:49:47 UTC