W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL

From: Natasha Noy <noy@SMI.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:11:48 -0700
Message-Id: <5E7FDFD2-2477-11D9-8244-000A958B5C28@smi.stanford.edu>
Cc: rector@cs.man.ac.uk, ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
To: Christopher Welty <welty@us.ibm.com>

> Well, OKBC was intended to be an API, in my understanding, so it may 
> very well have capabilities that are beyond FOL, as OO languages do.

but there is an axiomatization for it in FOL in the specs, AFAIK

>
> Regarding the axiomatization, why don't you try writing FOL axioms 
> that capture this.  I don't understand how what you have said can be 
> written in FOL.  

(=> (direct-type ?C ?x)
        (not (exists ?Y (and (subclass-of ?Y ?C) (instance-of ?X ?Y))))

(modulo the correct order of arguments for the predicates)

> Then, much more to the point, try it in OWL.

Ah, that's a whole other story :) But you were generalizing to FOL.

Natasha
Received on Friday, 22 October 2004 22:12:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:13 GMT