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

Re: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 21:14:16 +0200
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF83678622.C8635844-ONC1256C49.0067D96F-C1256C49.0069AE33@agfa.be>


[replying to Peter's reply from sept 26]

>> >> if
>> >>   :sb1 :prop :ob1 .
>> >>   :sb1 :prop :ob2 .
>> >>   :sb1 :prop :ob3 .
>> >> and
>> >>   :sb1 a [ a owl:Restriction;
>> >>            owl:onProperty :prop;
>> >>            owl:maxCardinality "2" ] .
>> >> then
>> >>   this is inconsistent
>> >>
>> >> -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent001.rdf
>> >
>> >No, this is consistent.  Remember, there is no unique names assumption.
>>
>> OK, would it be OK to add that :ob1, :ob2 and :ob3 are pairwise
>> owl:differentFrom each other?
>
>This should work, except that it is owl:differentIndividualFrom.
>You also need to say that :prop is an owl:ObjectProperty.
>
>> is there another way?
>
>In the abstract syntax, you could just say
>
>DifferentIndividuals(:ob1 :ob2 :ob3)

that's indeed linear (compared to the n! triples)
I see that there is also issue 5.18 Unique Names Assumption Support in OWL
and for that I have positive experience with
  <uri> rdf:type owl:UniqueNames .
used in an inference rule like

IF                         | THEN
-------------------------------------------------
?x log:notEqualTo ?y .     |
?z a owl:UniqueNames .     |
?z log:racine ?u .         |
?y log:racine ?u .         |
?x log:racine ?u .         | ?x owl:differentFrom ?y .

(for the log: names see http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 15:14:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT