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: Wed, 8 May 2002 01:29:35 +0200
To: jonathan@openhealth.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBDA5BB40.FB8EB3A3-ONC1256BB2.007ED0C4@agfa.be>

> > >
> > > Does your use of nested contexts and unasserted triples support the
need
> > > for this mechanism in OWL, as a solution to Peter's most recent
paradox?
> > > (this is turning into the Patel-Schneider paradox -hopefully finite-
> > > set)
> > >
> > > I am reading this as yes, but want to confirm.
> >
> > I would say yes
> > but what is that -hopefully finite- set?
> >
>
> Just a little joke, an _infinite_ set of paradoxes would be a bad thing I
> imagine -- it would probably take an infinite amount of time to resolve :
-))

What I also wanted to say is that when a blank node
is having properties attached to it so that it is
uniquely identified (e.g. an owl:UnambiguousProperty
or owl:first & owl:rest properties) then one _can_
build a functional term for that blank node so that
one can do unification of functional terms.
If such attached properties are acyclic
(as is the case when using N3's [])
then their assertions are also OK.

--
Jos
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2002 19:30:13 GMT

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