# Re: Rule-based approach to conclude owl:intersectionOf

From: Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:04:34 +0800
To: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>

Message-id: <002a01c539d7\$a1cb8a30\$0401a8c0@wongkjo9u38gzb>
```
Oh I am really sorry.. I'm always dreaming, the 2nd time making such kind of
mistake... -_-

the 5 facts should be..

<#A> rdf:type <#X> .
<#B> rdf:type <#X> , <#Y> .
<#C> rdf:type <#X> , <#Z> .

=>

<#X> rdfs:subClassOf <#Y> , <#Z> .

=>

<#X> owl:intersectionOf ( <#Y> , <#Z> ) .

Jeremy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Purcell" <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
To: "Jeremy Wong 黃泓量" <50263336@student.cityu..edu.hk>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Rule-based approach to conclude owl:intersectionOf

> Here is an example of the situation...
>
> # only5 facts in total
> <#X> rdf:type <#A> .
> <#Y> rdf:type <#A> , <#B> .
> <#Z> rdf:type <#A> , <#C> .
>
> =>
>
> # conclusion of the 5 facts
> <#X> rdfs:subClassOf <#Y> , <#Z> .

This doesn't make any sense. #X is of type #A -- how do you then
conclude that #X is a class? Or that it is related to #Y in any way?

Did you mean the following?

<#X> owl:unionOf ( <#A> )
<#Y> owl:unionOf ( <#A>, <#B> )
<#Z> owl:unionOf ( <#A>, <#C> )

Chris
```
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 13:17:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:45 UTC