- 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
[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 UTC