W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > January 2004

[moved] Re: OWL hole

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:52:02 -0500
Message-Id: <p06020434bc3ddf0ecf08@[]>
To: Jeff Lansing <jeff@polexis.com>, public-webont-comments@w3.org
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
At 13:38 -0800 1/28/04, Jeff Lansing wrote:
Ok, the hole is getting smaller (or the owl is getting bigger, 
depending on your perspective).

The suggestion to reason about the optional 'A has C' from the range 
definition is a good one.

But this only works well when the domain of the property is just A. 
If the domain is also a union of classes (e.g. in the WSA case 
already mentioned) then a lot of other unintended inferences pop out.

Could I use something like maxCardinality = 0 to rule the unintended 
inferences out?

More specifically, given classes 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E', a 
property 'has', and the "reality" that A has B and optionally has C, 
and that B is distinct from C, and that D has E, how do I say that A 
doesn't have E, and that C doesn't have B or C?


Jeff- this really doesn't belong here - this mailing list was 
intended for explicit discussion of the OWL documents, not for 
general discussion of use of OWL.  The mailing list 
www-rdf-logic@w3.org was designated as the right place for this sort 
of discussion - and is also read by a lot more people.  May I suggest 
you take this discussion there - you're more likely to get the 
answers you need on that list.
  Jim Hendler
  WOWG chair

Professor James Hendler			  http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler 
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-277-3388 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 16:52:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:09:29 UTC