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

Re: how to proceed with building OWL [was Re: semantics: layering ...]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 04 Mar 2002 14:01:11 -0600
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1015272072.30870.28.camel@dirk>
On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 07:00, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> So I think that a *decision* on layering needs to be made before we can
> make much in the way of progress,

On the contrary: I don't feel prepared to make a decision on
layering, and I don't expect to until I've done some
work on test cases etc.

[...]

> PS:  Here are a few informal inferences (entailments) that might be
> produced during step 1 of the above proposed process:
> 
> 1/ If John is in both A and B, then John is in the (an) intersection of A
>    and B. 
> 
> 2/ If John is a resource, then John is in the (a) singleton class (or
>    restriction) whose sole instance is John.  
> 
> 3/ If John has a child that is a Person, then John belongs to the (a)
>    restriction that requires that its members have a child that is a
>    Person.
> 
> 4/ If John is in a restriction R whose p's all belong to R, then John is in
>    some restriction whose p's all belong to the restriction itself.  
> 
> 5/ If Bill has no p's, then then Bill is in any restriction whose p's all
>    belong to the restriction itself. 

I think I'll try to make those into test cases and see
what the existing DAML+OIL tools have to say about them...

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 15:01:18 GMT

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