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

Re: TEST: Re: notes for 6/6 until 1:10 (oneOf/sameClassAs)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 13:56:26 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "\"\"Peter F. \"Patel-Schneider <pfps\"" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF547DCD83.FA054C59-ONC1256BD2.00413873@agfa.be>


> > Stop short of what?  Functional terms?  Has anyone proposed functional
> > terms?
> er... Jos mentioned them...
> > > > but functional terms could be there I think...

All I wanted to express is that there is
a difference between the general case of
  [ :p1 :o1; :p2 :o2 ] .
  _:si :p1 :o1; :p2 :o2 .
  _:s1 rdf:first :o1; rdf:rest :o2 .
  _:s2 owl:intersectionOf :l2 .
  _:s3 owl:unionOf :l3 .
  _:s4 owl:disjointUnionOf :l4 .
  _:s5 owl:oneOf :l5 .
in the sense that in the latter case
  _:si is unambiguously identified
and so we can take it as a funtional term
and avoid all the power/grief of
Skolem funtions in conclusions
which are otherwise needed in the CNF
(Clause Normal Form) rewrite of
rules with existentials in conclusions.

-- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 9 June 2002 18:25:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:44 UTC