- 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>
[...]
> 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 UTC