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

Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:01:53 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFA1E8C9A8.1B6DCAD6-ONC1256B72.00673F44@agfa.be>

[...]

> So, to be more precise it should have been
>
>
> log:entails
>   _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) .
>   _:2 a owl:Restriction .
>   _:2 owl:onProperty rdf:type .
>   _:2 hasClassQ _:1 .
        ^owl:
>   _:2 maxCardinalityQ "0" .
        ^owl:

OK Peter, I've re-re-re-ad your mail and think
I understand it better now
BUT please try to help us with the following:
1. using such entailment rules as in
   http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
   (this is just further play/elaboration of the
   RDFS MT entailment rules as in
   http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3)
   we can never derive a ... owl:oneOf ... statement
   (there is just no fact, nor rule consequence
   that matches it, so in fact we already fail there)
   so how could it ever be satisfied???
2. if that can indeed be entailed,
   could you please SHOW THE PROOF???

--
Jos De Roo
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 14:02:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:48 GMT