From: Matt Halstead <matt.halstead@auckland.ac.nz>

Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:08:20 +1200

Message-ID: <3EC304A4.7030200@auckland.ac.nz>

To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 15:08:20 +1200

Message-ID: <3EC304A4.7030200@auckland.ac.nz>

To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

I am beginning to confuse myself with direct subClass relationships in DAML+OIL. The example follows : Class A subClassOf hasObject X 1* ( means property hasObject hasClass X with cardinality 1 or more) Class B subClassOf A subClassOf hasObject Y 1= subClassOf hasObject Z 1* Class X Class Y subClassOf X Class Z subClassOf X What I am trying to do Class A has a property hasObject that can be one or more objects of class X. Now I want to make a more specialized form of Class A called Class B that is a subclass of A, but has the restrictions that it needs exactly one object of Class Y and at least 1 or more objects of Class Z. Class Y and Z are more specialized forms of Class X. If I take away the subClass of A restriction of Class B then I can still look at it and say members of Class B are certainly members of Class A. But now I seem to have lost the explicit feeling that subClass of A gave, especially when using an editor such as OilEd. The interpretation of multiple contraints on the same property I need to understand if my thinking is correct. The way I interpret Class B is as follows : There are 3 anonymous classes that Class B is some function of. 1) the class of all individuals that have at least 1 or more hasObject properties of type X 2) the class of all individuals that have at exactly 1 property hasObject of type Y 3) the class of all individuals that have at least 1 or more hasObject properties of type Z 2) and 3) are subsets of 1) We now form the conjunction of these restrictions, so that Class B is the class of individuals that have exactly one hasObject property of type Y and at least one or more hasObject properties of type Z, and that this forms a subset of the class of individuals that have 1 or more hasObject properties of type X. The fact I have used subclass say that these are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for membership. Is my interpretation is correct? regards MattReceived on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 23:08:44 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:40 UTC
*