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

Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 24 Apr 2002 11:03:56 -0500
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1019664238.17367.99.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 16:19, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 15:56, Jonathan Borden wrote:
> [...]
> > "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>]
> > 
> > ...
> 
> OK; that looks like a stumper: it's a defined class,
> and it's circular. I doubt Jeremy's rules
> provide for the relevant conclusions.


I take that back.

I tried to make a test case out of this, but it doesn't
involve any conclusions about the existence of circular stuff;
the existence of the circular stuff is in the premise
of the argument.

So I don't see a problem.

Maybe there is one, though. Can you think of some entialments
that you think our language should provide that aren't
provided by Jeremy's rules?


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:04:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT