> 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. NatashaReceived 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