Re: An inconsistency or not?

It is my second reply. Consider the interpretation of the cardinality 
restriction..

{x ∈ O | card({y ∈ O∪LV : <x,y> ∈ ER(p)}) = n}

Substitute n = 1, x = Harry, p = hasFather into the interpretation..

{Harry ∈ O | card({y ∈ O∪LV : <Harry,y> ∈ ER(hasFather)}) = 1}

Then..

{y ∈ {S(John),S(Johnny)} | card({John ∈ O∪LV : <Harry,y> ∈ 
ER(hasFather)}) = 2 <> 1}

Therefore the restriction (class axiom?), restriction(hasFather 
cardinality(1)), is not satisified. Hence the collection of axioms is not 
consistent.


Jeremy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeremy Wong" <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
To: "장민수 " <minsu@etri.re.kr>; <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: An inconsistency or not?


>
> John and Johnny are inconsistent unless there exists a statement..
>
> John owl:sameAs Johnny
>
>
> I am not sure, either. Let me know your final answer, when you get it..
>
>
>
> Jeremy
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "장민수 " <minsu@etri.re.kr>
> To: <semantic-web@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 5:10 PM
> Subject: An inconsistency or not?
>
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have a question regarding OWL semantics.
>> Please consider the following OWL sentences in N3:
>>
>> Person rdf:type owl:Class.
>> r1 rdf:type Restriction.
>> r1 owl:onProperty hasFather.
>> r1 owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger.
>> Person rdfs:subClassOf r1.
>> Harry rdf:type Person.
>> Harry hasFather John.
>> Harry hasFather Johnny.
>>
>> As you can see from the above sentences, Harry is a Person.
>> And, by r1, Harry can have exactly one value for hasFather property..
>> But, it is asserted that Harry has two different
>> values, John & Johnny, for hasFather property.
>>
>> I can't decide which of the following is true.
>>
>> A. John and Johnny are actually the same individual.
>> B. The above sequence of sentences are inconsistent.
>>
>> Please help.
>>
>> Sincerely Yours,
>> Minsu Jang
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 19:31:48 UTC