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

Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:31:20 +0200
To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA0F8C53E.941746F8-ONC1256DB3.005FEB16-C1256DB3.00604AD5@agfa.be>


Hadn't read that before my question in the telecon; sorry
it's now clear if we obsolete Ontology-002

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


                                                                                                                                       
                      Jeremy Carroll                                                                                                   
                      <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.        To:       Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA                                    
                      com>                     cc:       pfps@research.bell-labs.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org             
                                               Subject:  Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon                                           
                      2003-10-02 05:44                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                       





That test case is precisely the one we are trying to change.

After the last decision in this space I cam up with test case
Ontology-002 nd Ontology-003 which are the same except one is positive and
one is negative, and one is Full and the other DL.

To respect semantic layering one of them needs to change - it does not
matter which.

Jeremy

Jos De_Roo wrote:

>
> Peter:
>
>>From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
>>Subject: Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon
>>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:50 +0300
>>
>>
>>>On
>>>C/ Semantic layering bug
>>>
>>>again
>>>
>>>I am beginning to understand ...
>>>
>>>with this suggestion we would have
>>>
>>>*empty*
>>>
>>>does not entail
>>>
>>>_:b rdf:type owl:Ontology
>>>
>>>in both DL and Full?
>>>
>>Yes.
>>
>
> Then how's the reasoning for testcase Ontology-002 [2]?
> i.e.
>
> {
> :Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car owl:equivalentClass first:Automobile .
> :car rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :car rdf:type first:Car .
> :auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :auto rdf:type first:Automobile .
> }
>
> OWL Lite entails
>
> {
> :Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car rdf:type owl:Class .
> :car rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :car rdf:type :Automobile .
> :auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :auto rdf:type first:Car .
> _:b rdf:type owl:Ontology .
> }
>
>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Ontology/Manifest002
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 13:32:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT