Re: OWL reasoning in rules

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: OWL reasoning in rules
Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:07:48 +0100

> 
> 
> 
> Ulrike Sattler wrote:
> > It is not too difficult to see that we can construct an OWL ontology all 
> > of whose models are infinite (let me know if you want  to see an example 
> > of such an ontology), e.g., where each model contains an infinite chain 
> > of fathers *in addition to the fathers that are explicitly present in 
> > the ontology, 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I would like to see a small ontology which is necessarily infinite.
> 
> I've just being looking with google, and found my own
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/dl-900-arith#description-logic-908
> 
> which I believe hinges on
>     2*3*n = 5*n & n>0
>      implies n >= aleph0,
> but I am still trying to understand it.
> 
> thanks for a pointer
> 

There are lots of other ways of requiring an infinite model.   

One of the simplest, using father but not exactly true-to-life:

father <= Human x Human

	father is a relationship between humans

Human <=  ( =1 father) ^ ( <=1 father- )

	All humans have exactly one father and at most one inverse of
	father. 

	From this we get that every human has either an infinite chain
	of fathers or is in a completely isolated cycle of fathers.
	Otherwise there would be a human with more than one father
	inverse. 

John in Human ^ ( <=0 father- )

	John is a human with no father inverse.

	From this John must be the root of an infinite chain of fathers.


peter

Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2007 14:36:17 UTC