- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:28:18 +0200
- To: "Sean Bechhofer <seanb" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com
[Sean's explanation of http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/inconsistent107.rdf] > The role hierarchy is a bit of a red herring here, as is the definition > of a. I never clearly understood what "red herring" meant; now I got it ;-) > The definition of Unsatisfiable says that anything that's an instance of > Unsatisfiable has to have at least 1 r, has to be related to a c via r and > has to be related to a d via r. It must also be related to no more than > one thing via r (the complement of [minCard 2 r] is [maxCard 1 r]). But > this leads to a contradiction as c and d are disjoint. OK - my understanding of owl:someValuesFrom was wrong I thought that the intersectionOf restriction(a:r someValuesFrom a:d) restriction(a:r someValuesFrom a:c) wasn't that strongly constrained ie that it has some members related to a c via r and some other members related to a d via r but I guess that's what you call a unionOf isn't it? > Does that help? Quite a lot, thanks Sean. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 05:29:01 UTC