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

Re: TEST: FunctionalProperty InverseFunctionalProperty 3.4 4.1

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:42:11 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2B33D451.92E3D6BC-ONC1256C09.0055F999@agfa.be>

[before you go on holiday... have a good holiday!]

> > On July 26, Jeremy Carroll writes:
> > I am also concerned about tests in the style of FunctionalProperty
> > test 003. Here, we are asked to conclude that a property is
> > InverseFunctional given that its inverse is functional. This is a
> > higher order inference that is a consequence of the semantics of OWL,
> > but cannot be proved within OWL. I.e., OWL does not state anything
> > like:
> >
> > forall P,Q . FunctionalProperty(P) ^ inverse(P,Q) -> 
InverseFunctionalProperty(Q)
> >
> > I would *NOT* expect an OWL reasoner to find this inference.
> >
>
>
>
> I could support this as a non-entailment test.

me too (although I currently support the entailment)

[...]

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 11:43:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT