Re: SEM: discussions concerning model theory (Re: ADMIN: draft ftf meeting record)

> >   :large eg:inconsistentWith owl:oneOf .
>
> This doesn't follow in any proposal, as eg:inconsistentWith is not 
defined
> in any of the proposals.  In any case, what is the intended meaning of
> eg:inconsistentWith here?

well I think that Jeremy has a maybe much better proposal in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0101.html
point 4.3
my main concern is that I would like to know WHY
some stuff is inconsistent (and I believe in a proof
form of that giving evidence via deduction rules but
I agree that this is kind of out of scope here)
and I think that SEM must specify that

> > So I thought (and tried sucessfully out with
> > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules)
> > why not having that
> >
> >   :p owl:extension ( ( :s1 :o1 ) ( :s2 :o2 ) ) .
> >   :q owl:extension ( ( :s2 :o2 ) ( :s1 :o1 ) ) .
> >   :r owl:extension ( ( :s1 :o1 ) ) .
> >   :s3 :p :o3 .
> >
> > owl-entails
> >
> >   :s1 :p :o1 .
> >   :q owl:samePropertyAs :p .
> >   :r rdfs:subPropertyOf :q .
> >   ( :s3 :o3 ) eg:inconsistentWith owl:extension .
>
> Well owl:extension is not in any of the proposals so how can this 
follow?

well of course there isn't such an owlproposed:extension
but then there shouldn't be a owl:oneOf either...
unless there is something that I miss
(it was a beg for help Peter)

> > as ako explicitly stating the definitive extension
> > of a property and check it's consistencies as well
> > (just like for classes)

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