W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: OWL Syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 16:23:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030225.162337.123582493.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

CorrectFrom: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: OWL Syntax
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 22:00:06 +0100

> Jeremy:

[...]

> Peter:
> > I don't believe that this is the case.  
> > 
> >  Ontology(
> >    EquivalentClasses(
> >       restriction( dp1 cardinality(1) )
> >       restriction( dp3 cardinality(1) )
> >    )
> >    EquivalentClasses(
> >       restriction( dp1 cardinality(1) )
> >       restriction( dp2 allValuesFrom( xsd:byte ) )
> >    )
> >  )
> > 
> > will generate a version with one owl:sameClassAs triple removed.
> > 
> 
> I think you will find that the second instance of 
>    restriction( dp1 cardinality(1) )
> will generate a different bnode to the first.
> Thus this does not map onto the required graph.
> In particular the owl:equivalentClass triples are
> 
>  _:a owl:equivalentClass _:b .
>  _:c owl:equivalentClass _:d .
> 
> (over four distinct bnodes, rather than three distinct
> bnodes in the original).
> 
> Jeremy

Argh.  You are correct.   The two versions entail each other, but are
different syntactically.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 16:23:56 GMT

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