W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > March 2005

Re: An inconsistency or not?

From: Jeremy Wong <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:54:08 +0800
To: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, 장민수 <minsu@etri.re.kr>
Message-id: <001f01c53594$877a5360$6502a8c0@miko947ymju833>

Good point! You cannot say that my argument is invalid. I cannot say that 
your argument is invalid. In reference to section 5.2 of OWL Reference, OWL 
tools should assume in principle that 2 URI references (John and Johnny) 
either the same or different individuals is possible.


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>; "장민수" <minsu@etri.re.kr>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: An inconsistency or not?


> You assert:
>
>     card({...}) = 2
>
> This is only true if John != Johnny, which we do not know. Your argument 
> is invalid.
>
>> 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.
>
> 
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 02:06:08 UTC

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