W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:42:38 +0100
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDEEMNCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> > 2. How do "unasserted triples" solve this problem?
> (On a different thread).

I am sorry, I can't find the thread I was going to put this in.

Peter suggested that Instance OIL was a worked out solution showing 
how dark triples solved the problem.

I am not familiar with OIL so I downloaded:

"An informal description of Standard OIL and Instance OIL"


by about half of this WG. 
The last sentence of this:
"Only classes are provided, not meta-classes or individuals"
seems to suggest a commitment to dark triples.

I noticed that it includes the qualified cardinality constraints.
Thus I assume that either:

(a) it is possible within OIL to form the Patel-Scheidner 


(b) that Instance OIL lacks a comprehension principle

In either case I am unclear how dark triples solves the problem.

PfPS paradox in OIL

class-def PfPSX
   slot-constraint type
     max-cardinality 0 (one-of PfPSX)

Or maybe type is not a slot in OIL?

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 13:55:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC