Re: Tests in responses to LC comments on DL design

[...]

> TEST 1: Consistency check - the following is consistent
>
> Define a class called Continent as oneOf (Asia Europe NorthAmerica ...)
>
> Define a class called Country
>
> Define ContainsLocation as an objectProperty
>       with domain of Continent and range of Country
>
> Define ContainedIn as the inverseOf ContainsLocation
>
> <:Finland owl:class :Country>
> <:Finland :ContainedIn :Europe>
>
> Test 2: Not consistent
>
> same as above but assert
>
> <:Finland owl:class :Country>
> <:Finland :ContainedIn :NorthernHemisphere>
>
> ===========
> These would show that this kind of reasoning doesn't automatically
> break DL, and would also show that there are useful (or at least
> evocative) examples where you see that the use of both inverse and
> oneOf can be helpful.

I ran test 2 but had to add to the premises that
:NorthernHemisphere owl:differentFrom :Africa, :Antarctica, :Asia, :Europe,
:NorthAmerica, :SouthAmerica.
in order to have it an inconsistency test (*)

this non unique names assumption is really important
(have to look into the DL tests)

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

PS used a rule like {: rdfs:fyi :rule20o0. ?C owl:oneOf ?L. ?P rdfs:domain
?C. ?S ?P ?X. ?L neg:item ?X} => {?X log:inconsistentWith owl:oneOf}.