W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Uncles in OWL DL

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:14:23 +0100
Message-Id: <CBDCA8E1-10C7-498F-9425-28E0B7560B8A@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
To: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

On 23 Aug 2007, at 11:01, Denny Vrandecic wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I know I probably have a mistake in here, but I am not sure where  
> it is. Maybe you can help me.
>
> In OWL DL it is possible to say
>
> A(_1).
>
> with _1 being a blank node.


Yes, as shown in the mapping table:
	<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/mapping.html#4.1>

(search for)

	_:x rdf:type T(type1)

> It is also possible to say the semantically equivalent thing
>
> {_1} ⊑ A

No it's not legal. See:
	classID owl:oneOf T(SEQ iID1…iIDn) .

[snip]
> Now, since this is possible,

This presupposition fails. (And yes, it's not obvious ;)
[snip]

Consider:
	<http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=45>

> A bit confused,

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 23 August 2007 10:13:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT