- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 02:37:14 +0200
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
oops... that rewrite should have been the horn
~(a nand b) or ~(b nand c) or ~(c nand a) or false
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jos
De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/ To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
BAYER@AGFA cc:
Sent by: Subject: TEST: description-logic testcases
www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
2003-05-09 02:06 AM
This is maybe a (railway) sleeper;
is about (re)writing those dl testcases in
simple triples and triple implications.
Let's take case 001
<!--
DL Test: fact1.1
If a, b and c are disjoint, then:
(a and b) or (b and
c) or (c and a)
is unsatisfiable.
-->
and simply write that down as
:a owl:disjointWith :b.
:a owl:disjointWith :c.
:b owl:disjointWith :c.
{:a owl:disjointWith :b. :b owl:disjointWith :c. :c owl:disjointWith :a} =>
{: a :Inconsistency}.
where the rewrite of (a and b) or (b and c) or (c and a)
is the cnf ~(a or b) or ~(b or c) or ~(c or a) or false
and then the inconsistency is easily proved as
: a :Inconsistency.
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 20:37:26 UTC