- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 11:30:01 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
What i have done, for non-compound keys, is create a uri with the value embedded as a string, use and object property and make that inverse functional. Works well for the simple cases. -Alan On Mar 8, 2007, at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > A feature of OWL Full that is fairly widely used, but not in DL is > the ability to declare a datatype property as inverse functional. > I seemed to remember that the reason for excluding it from DL was > to do with complexity rather than decidability; and that there was > a horrocks paper on the topic. > I can't find such a paper. Any pointers please? > > Also: > > Given an ontology A, which would be in DL except that property p is > declared as both inverse functional and a datatype property, and > for simplicity, p is not subPropertyOf or equivalentProperty to any > other property, we can construct an ontology B as follows: > > a) replace every triple > a p d . > with > a p' data:d . > > b) replace every hasValue d restriction on p, with a hasValue > data:d restriction on p'. > > c) for each data:d1 and data:d2 URIs so introduced with data:d1 != > data:d2 add > data:d1 owl:differentFrom data:d2 . > > Then B is an OWL DL ontology and is consistent iff A is consistent. > > Since B is only polynomially more complex than A, it would seem > that this is tractable. > > Bold assertion: this generalizes to all use of IFP and DP. > Comments? > Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 16:30:53 UTC