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

Re: SEM: semantics for current proposal (why R disjoint V?) (sameState TEST)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:28:02 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Ian Horrocks <horrocks" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF464AA595.1D558C4A-ONC1256BAB.002D92D6@agfa.be>

> > What you seem to want is to use datatype values as "keys", and I can
> > see why this might be useful.
>
> Good; thanks.
>
> > Unfortunately, the interaction of UnambiguousProperty and datatypes
> > makes this problematical. Imagine, for example, that a datatype
> > consisting of integers in the range 0-999 is used as a unique-id/key
> > for instances of the class Person such that all persons have exactly
> > one unique-id, all unique-ids are integers in the range 0-999, and
> > unique-id is an UnambiguousProperty.  In order to function correctly,
>
> That is: 'in order to function as Ian would like'. We don't
> have a requirement for complete-and-tractible reasoning.

if this discussion is about
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameStateP.n3
entailing
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/sameStateC.n3
we need 2 steps for the proof which is about
the shortest test I've done so far

--
Jos
Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 04:29:01 GMT

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