- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 09:40:06 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jos De_Roo wrote: > > > 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 ) . > ==== > > 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 > 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 > Aha, so if there was some process that could generate the hypothetical classes for me, e.g. _:U owl:intersectionOf(:Student, :Employee) . then a GHOWL reasoner could 'deduce' the desired relationships. That is to say, these classes would be 'interesting' only if they had, perhaps, a non-zero number of instances. This still raises the question of where these classes might come from. Perhaps a reasoner implemented according to Peter's MT, might generate them in the first place? Perhaps there is a role for _both_ forms of the MT: using your device, we might obtain the necessary entailments for GHOWL. The question which this now raises in my mind is: given this device, is there a difference in the entailments licensed by either Peter's or Pat's MT? If not, what are the functional differences? Jonathan
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 09:35:31 UTC