> According to the S&AS, owl:complementOf(c) is interpreted > as O - EC(c), which is, as I understand, a set of individuals > which are not contained in the set of individuals of type c. > > For me, this was easily taken as a semantic which can be > implemented simply by negation-as-failure. I could formulate > the semantic into a rule as follows: > > if > owl:complementOf(?c1,?c2) and owl:Thing(?x) and not ?c2(?x) > then > ?c1(?x); > > Is this a proper axiomatization of owl:complementOf? No, because it depends on whether you have a complete representation of "EC(?c2)" in the scope of your KB. To get this, you would need to make an explicit completeness assumption (also called "local closed-world assumption", see previous messages in this list) for the class denoted by ?c2. Gerd Wagner http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/staff/gwagner/Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2003 14:30:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 25 March 2005 11:20:50 GMT