# RE: The Ugly Test

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:08:58 +0100

Message-ID: <OFC721B6AF.EF0BCF49-ONC1256CC0.004795B7-C1256CC0.00483ED0@agfa.be>
```

>> suppose you have a similar case
>>   the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4
>>   the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6
>>   i is in a restriction on property p
>>     with mincardinality of 2
>>
>> is it then the case that
>>   i p 3
>>   i p 4
>
>
>Yes that is correct.
>
>>
>> I wouldn't think so as I (still) think
>> that ranges can come in via RDF merges
>>   the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8
>>
>> (I think I can't live with the idea of
>> *closed* ranges...)
>>
>
>The ranges aren't closed the related case ls:
>
>>   the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4
>>   the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6
>>   the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8
>>   i is in a restriction on property p
>>     with mincardinality of 2
>
>This is inconsistent and thus it entails
>
>>   i p 3
>>   i p 4
>
>(but it is less interesting this time round!).

that's a nice reasoning hmm...
so you would make it impossible to further make
the range of a property sharper (doing so would
make the kb inconsistent)
I believe that this is not following from AS&S
at least I can't conclude it from such piece as
if E is rdfs:range
then for x element of IOP, y element of IOC U IDC
<x,y> element of EXTi(Si(E)) iff
<w,z> element of EXTi(x) -> z element of CEXTi(y)
which we interpret as
{?x rdfs:range ?y. ?w ?x ?z} => {?z rdf:type ?y}.
{?z rdfs:subClassOf ?y. ?x rdfs:range ?z} => {?x rdfs:range ?y}.

so I still think that we can't call the proposed testcase
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest004#test a
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#PositiveEntailmentTest

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
```
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 08:15:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC