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

Re: revised version of semantics document

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 23:16:30 -0400
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020821231630S.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: Re: revised version of semantics document
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:13:50 +0200

> [...]
> 
> > > 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)
> 
> what we have is
>  {
>   <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule9c4> .
>   :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee).
>    {
>     <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i2> .
>     :John a :Student.
>      {
>       <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i2> .
>       :John a :Employee.
>        {
>         <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i1> } |=
>       {:John ns:inEachOf ( )}} |=
>     {:John ns:inEachOf ( :Employee)}} |=
>   {:John ns:inEachOf ( :Student :Employee)}} |=
> {:John a :C}.
> 
> using
> { :rule9c4 . ?C owl:intersectionOf ?L . ?x :inEachOf ?L } log:implies { ?x 
> a ?C } .
> { :rule14i1 } log:implies { ?x :inEachOf ( ) } .
> { :rule14i2 . ?x a ?a . ?x :inEachOf ?b } log:implies { ?x :inEachOf [ 
> rdf:first ?a; rdf:rest ?b ] } .
> 
> and I think it is quite natural to explicitly give
>   :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .
> 
> as a premis, no?

Not at all.  Why should I have to put this in the premise if I don't feel
like it?  Why should it matter?

> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

peter
Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 23:16:41 GMT

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