- From: David Martin <martin@AI.SRI.COM>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:56:38 -0700
- To: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
- CC: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Marcelo Tallis'" <mtallis@teknowledge.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Tim Finin wrote: > > From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks > > ... > > Another possible interpretation is some sort of "role value > > map", as it is called in description logics. i.e., we may > > want to say that for all pairs of individuals (x,y) related > > by some property P (or some chain of properties), the P1 > > property of x and the P2 property of y must have the same > > individual as their objects. I believe that we can't capture > > this in DAML+OIL - if we can then we made some mistake > > somewhere as the language would certainly be undecidable. > > I understood that this was what David needs, or something close to it. Yes. > > We want to be able to say, for example, that a Process has two > steps and that the output of step one must be the same individual > as the input of step two. If we don't have this in our language then it > may be very hard to model complex processes which have sub-processes > that have constraints between them. For that matter, it will be hard to > model complex things composed of parts which have constraints among > them. Well put. - David
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 14:55:13 UTC