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 11:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20020926.112301.89012634.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: Re: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:19:29 +0200

> 
> [...was expecting worse]
> 
> >> 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)

[...]


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

peter
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:23:13 GMT

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