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

Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 10:04:09 +0200
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: "<pfps" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ""jjc" <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ""www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF6C7D6F53.A5C1D146-ONC1256BB1.002B77AD@agfa.be>

Jonathan,

> Is there a way that you can place a finite boundary on the number of
times
> this back and forth will occur, that is, is there a way, using
comprehensive
> entailments, that you will be absolutely certain that the entailments are
> actually comprehensive? For example, suppose we decide to go with this
> approach, and then just after CR, for example, someone demonstrates yet
> another example of a paradox for which no easy rule can be developed.
What
> then?

well, I think it comes down to what you do with what you have derived
e.g.
  rdfs:Class a [ owl:complementOf [ a owl:Restriction; owl:onProperty
      rdf:type; owl:maxCardinality "0"; owl:hasClass
          rdfs:Class]]

is obtained via some entailment rules, but I think there
is no reason to ``assert such a graph i.e. I wouldn't
consider entailment rules as comprehension rules
Received on Monday, 6 May 2002 07:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT