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: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:02:38 -0400
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020822080238F.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 13:49:16 +0200

> [...]
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> OK, fine.
> If you don't like that, you just write
> 
> ==== peterP1
> @prefix : <university#> .
> 
> :John a :Student .
> :John a :Employee .
> ====
> 
> and jon's agents somewhere came accross
> (remark the unnamed class _:U)
>
> ==== jonP1
> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
> @prefix : <university#> .
> 
> _:U owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .
> ====

Where? How?  Why?  Why should it matter?

> then you could still OWL-entail
> 
> ==== peterC1
> @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
> @prefix : <university#> .
> 
> :John a _:X .
> _:X owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .
> ====
> 
> but you would indeed need jonP1

Yes, indeed, I would now need this extra KB which seems totally unnatural
to me.

> It matters because of
> all models of the premis are also models of the conclusion
> and no new existentials are introduced in the entailment rules

Why should anyone care at all about the entailment rules?

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

peter
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 08:02:55 GMT

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