From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:34:23 +0200

To: "Sean Bechhofer <seanb" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>

Cc: connolly@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <OFEA97BCBC.579BF057-ONC1256D81.0079DE36-C1256D81.007BFFC1@agfa.be>

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:34:23 +0200

To: "Sean Bechhofer <seanb" <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>

Cc: connolly@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

Message-ID: <OFEA97BCBC.579BF057-ONC1256D81.0079DE36-C1256D81.007BFFC1@agfa.be>

Sean - thanks a lot; now I think we can simplify our implications (abstracting further from the test cases to be able to solve more of them). -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ PS Not sure how to tell this, but this week I looked to my credit card expenses and found that somebody took 1505 GBP from my money; the card is not stolen; the first transaction is in Manchester (end of june). We had a f2f meeting in january and there could probably be other victims... Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac. To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA uk> cc: connolly@w3.org, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org> Sent by: Subject: Re: minor typos in Test doc www-webont-wg-req uest@w3.org 2003-08-13 01:20 PM On Wed, 13 Aug 2003, Jos De_Roo wrote: > > [Sean's further explanation of > http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/description-logic/inconsistent107.rdf] > > > Well, in general, the intersection of > > > > restriction(a:r someValuesFrom a:d) > > restriction(a:r someValuesFrom a:c) > > > > means that there must be a d related via r and a c related via r, but > they > > don't *have* to be the same individual -- there could be two of them. > > > > In this case of this test, however, the extra constraint on the > > cardinality of r (due to the negation of the minCardinality) means > > that there can *only* be one, hence the contradiction. > > > > The various different ways of combining restrictions using intersection > > and union are related as follows: > > > > 1. some R.(C and D) > > 2. (some R.C) and (some R.D) > > 3. some R.(C or D) > > 4. (some R.C) or (some R.D) > > > > Given no other contraints, we know that it's always the case that: > > > > 1. => 2. > > 2. => 3. > > 2. => 4. > > 3. == 4. > > > > Apologies if this is teaching grandma to suck eggs (another marvellous > > phrase :-). > > No apologies, this is extremely useful teaching! > Above implications are exactly what I'm missing > in my understanding and I believe it will simplify > our clumsy implementation that we have right now. > Is all R.(C and D) similar? Similar, yes. If we have: 1. all R.(C and D) 2. (all R.C) and (all R.D) 3. all R.(C or D) 4. (all R.C) or (all R.D) Then we get: 1. == 2. 1. => 4. 2. => 4. 4. => 3. > What about complement? Is > complement some R.C = all R.(complement C)? complement (some R.C) == all R.(complement C) complement (all R.C) == some R.(complement C) Cheers, Sean -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanbReceived on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 18:35:10 GMT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50
: Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT
*