- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:00:53 +0000
- To: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: rhm@PioneerCA.com, matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk, semantic-web@w3.org, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Mar 7, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Michael Schneider wrote: [snip] > Unluckily, I cannot check this with the navigator, because there is > no such "concept disjointness" checkbox. It seems that all I can do > is comparing the complexity classes of OWL-Lite and OWL-DL, which > is an upper-language of OWL-Lite+disj: > > * Complexity( OWL-Lite ) = ExpTime (complete) [snip] It stays EXPTIME-complete since you can polynomially encode class disjointness in OWL-Lite. I was going to gin up an example using min1 and max0 on some dummy property, but the I found it in an email: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jun/0259> (At the bottom.) """ > > [1] An example construct, which Jeremy credits to Ian Horrocks, is as follows. > > > > > > Given a definition of a class C: > > > Class(C complete <expr1>) > > > > > > The let P be a property which is not used elsewhere and define: > > > Class(C complete restriction(minCardinality(P, 1)) > > > Class(C-co complete restriction(maxCardinality(P, 0))""" (Er..it would have been less work to just recreate it, but I was looking for a better overall explanation) Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 15:01:04 UTC