Re: Asymmetry of Domain and Range in OWL

OK, in my world A subclassOf B has an FOL interpretation of (=> (A ?x) (B 
?x)) and o instance-of A has an FOL interpretation of (A o).  You've 
invented a new logic on top of FOL, in which the elements of the language 
(i.e. subclass, instance-of) are FOL predicates.  I was talking about FOL.

-Chris

Dr. Christopher A. Welty, Knowledge Structures Group
IBM Watson Research Center, 19 Skyline Dr., Hawthorne, NY  10532     USA   
 
Voice: +1 914.784.7055,  IBM T/L: 863.7055, Fax: +1 914.784.7455
Email: welty@watson.ibm.com, Web: 
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/w/welty/

public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 10/22/2004 06:11:48 PM:

> 
> > 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
> 
>