From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:31:12 -0700

Message-Id: <p05111b0eb99e0956f5cb@[65.212.118.251]>

To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 00:31:12 -0700

Message-Id: <p05111b0eb99e0956f5cb@[65.212.118.251]>

To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

>I found one two, or rather an infinite set ... > >for any three natural numbers iii, jjj, kkk such that > iii+jjj>=kkk > >following Peter's semantics we have: > > >:p rdfs:subPropertyOf :r . >:q rdfs:subPropertyOf :r . > >entails > >_:x rdf:type rdfs:Class . >_:x owl:intersectionOf [ > <<:p owl:minCardinality iii>> > <<:q owl:minCardinality jjj>> >] . >_:x rdfs:subClassOf > <<:r owl:minCardinility kkk>> . > >(using notation from >http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/RDFS2OWL-C.html >) > >Since this entailment uses rather more arithmetic than I feel confortable >with, I prefer it being a non-entailment. I need to look at this example more closely (dont quote see why we need the plus sign in the inequality) but the general point is well taken. There is a danger in introducing arithmetic comparisons into any logic. I think we need to be careful to state the cardinality conditions with 'guards' on them so that the 'integers' involved are restricted in some way, eg maybe totally ordered by < but not, say, an arithmetic field. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Friday, 6 September 2002 04:58:24 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:47 UTC
*