- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 15:54:02 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: Michael Schneider <m_schnei@gmx.de>, rhm@PioneerCA.com, matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk, semantic-web@w3.org, public-owl-dev@w3.org
I believe there is a whole section of the OWL Test Cases dedicated to this construction. Each of the harder DL tests that was susceptible to this approach was so transformed into OWL Lite! Jeremy Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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 15:55:01 UTC