- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:26:17 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jos De_Roo wrote: > > [...] > > > > the one that I can go with is > > > > > > :John a :Student . > > > :John a :Employee . > > > :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . > > > OWL-entails > > > :John a :C . > > > > > > as all models of the premis are also models of the conclusion > > > and no new existentials are introduced in the entailment rules > > > (the lists in the conclusions are identical clones) > > > > Do you have a complete way of transforming from the natural entailment > to > > this entailment? > > well Peter, I don't know what you mean with "natural entailment" > I guess it's the one that you wanted to hold i.e. > :John a :Student . > :John a :Employee . > OWL-entails > :John owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . > > but I still don't understand the question (and it's 3:12 AM here) ... > > and I think it is quite natural to explicitly give > :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . > > as a premis, no? > An advantage of entailing a class that isn't a premise (i.e. isn't already named) is that the classifier might 'find' classes that naturally exist but haven't been explicitly labelled. This might be useful, for example, in the case where a cluster of symptoms, findings etc. indicate a brand new disease. The advantage of not requiring the disease to be already known/named is that given a knowledge base, an OWL classifier might otherwise be able to discover new facts. This could be a big benefit, I imagine. Jonathan
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 21:21:32 UTC