Re: "Transitive over" properties

Minsu Jang wrote:

>To me, Jos De_Roo's solution looks like a nice one 
>illustrating the complementary roles of rules and ontology.
>
>But, it'd be more concise to me if there were two rules;
>one for expressing the semantics of owl:TransitiveProperty,
>and another for relating 'worksFor' and 'consistsOf'. Here's
>my take:
>
>[Ontology Part]
>:consistsOf a owl:TransitiveProperty.
>:aCompany :consistsOf :rAndD.
>:rAndD :consistsOf :gSw.
>:gSw :consistsOf :gSwBe.
>:mk :worksFor :gSwBe.
>
>[Rule Part 1: OWL Semantics]
>if owl:TransitiveProperty(?p) and ?p(?x,?y) and ?p(?y,?z)
>then ?p(?x,?z);
>
>[Rule Part 2: TransitiveOver Property]
>if worksFor(?a,?b) and consistsOf(?b,?c) 
>then worksFor(?a,?c);
>
>We need semantic web rules.
>
Ok, I agree rules will do this fine.
The reason for me to see transitiveOver on OWL was that rdfs:subClassOf 
& rdf:type already are transitiveOver, so it seemed logical to me to 
have this relation defined directly.

[Went reading about WS Rules ;-)]

Mikhail Khlopotov
South Ural State University, Russia