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

Re: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020926.105930.107145832.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Subject: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:43:14 +0200

> 
> I'm feeling weak when it comes to cardinalities but not too weak
> to risk 2 inconsistency testcases for the maxCardinality feature
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> if
>   :sb1 :prop :ob1 .
>   :sb1 :prop :ob2 .
>   :sb1 :otherprop :ob3 .
> and
>   :sb1 a [ a owl:Restriction;
>            owl:onProperty :prop;
>            owl:maxCardinality "2" ] .
>   :otherprop rdfs:subPropertyOf :prop .
> 
> then
>   this is inconsistent
> 
> -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent002.rdf

Similarly, also consistent.

> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Further, neither of the above is RDF.  In proposing a test, I think that
the actual test needs to be given out.

peter

PS: I get an error when accessing the
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/ directory.  Is this the
desired behaviour?
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 10:59:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT