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

Re: ISSUE 5.3 Semantic Layering

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:59:58 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF36BC33FC.9C42B7A1-ONC1256D55.0072758B-C1256D55.00735C05@agfa.be>


> Jos,
> concerning the restriction.
>
> I don't follow your reasoning.
>
> From S&AS section 5
>
> If
> <x,y> in EXTI(SI(owl:hasValue))) and
> <x,p> in EXTI(SI(owl:onProperty)))
>
> then
> x in IOR, y in IOC union IDC, p in IOOP union IODP, and CEXTI(x) =
>
> (that's a bug in S&AS - it should read y in IOT union LV1)
>
> {u ***in IOT*** | <u, y> in EXTI(p) }
>
>
> Your reasoning is unsound with respect to the starred part of the
semantics.

OK, in OWL ***Full*** it should be
{u in RI | <u, y> in EXTI(p) }
and let's do that explicitly for
all such instead of simply saying

IOT = RI
IOC = CEXTI(SI(rdfs:Class))
IOP = CEXTI(SI(rdf:Property))

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 17:00:10 GMT

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