- From: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:12:01 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: ewallace@cme.nist.gov, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On Wednesday 03 October 2007, Bijan Parsia wrote: > Quick check reveals to me that you got why more elaborate key > reasoning is hard (i.e., why we don't want to have to work with > unnamed individuals or unknown key values and restrictions on key > properties). I took Evan to be asking about why we can't have "check" > semantics for keys (i.e., missing keys are a violation). Ah, my bad. So - is the "check" semantics equivalent to raising "inconsistent" if the values of the key for all relevant individuals are not entailed by the ontology? That is, given an ontology o, some individual i, a key k, and a value v (all in the interpretation of o), i in (k some Thing) => exists v s.t. o |= k(i, v) Matthew
Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2007 17:12:25 UTC