Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples

Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> Er... that's begging the question. No fair.

Actually, "begging the question" has a different logical meaning than you
intend here, but that is a different matter.

>
> I don't expect cyclic structures to come up in normal stuff at all.
>
> Please explain why you think cyclic structures will be necessary
> to define (?) a disease.

something like one of these (simplified for example purposes):

"Patients with a paternally inherited dominant disease, have fathers with a
paternally inherited dominant disease"

(note, for "patients with ..." read "patients who are members of the class
of people with ...")

<Restriction rdf:ID="PaternalDominantInheritance">
    <onProperty rdf:resource="#father">
    <toClass rdf:resource="#PaternalDominantInheritance">
</Restriction>

"Patients with a maternally inherited dominant disease, have mothers with a
maternally inherited dominant disease"

<Restriction rdf:ID="MaternalDominantInheritance">
    <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/>
    <toClass rdf:resource="#MaternalDominantInheritance"/>
</Restriction>

"Patients with a dominantly inherited disease  have a father with a
dominantly inherited disease, and/or a mother with a dominantly inherited
disease"

<Class rdf:ID="DominantInheritance">
    <unionOf>
        <Restriction>
                <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/>
                <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
        </Restriction>
        <Restriction>
                <onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/>
                <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" />
        </Restriction>
    </unionOf>
</Class>]

...

Jonathan

Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 17:00:32 UTC