- From: Cristian Cocos <cristi@ieee.org>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:27:15 -0300
- To: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Alright Jie, so let me see if I understand this properly--see below my comments. (As I am a little uncomfortable with the usual DL lingo, I'll use the standard set-theoretic jargon, though I hope this will not prevent you from following my musings. (You may, alternatively, want to construe my comments as addressing the semantic level.)) > EquivalentClasses( Human ObjectHasSelf( ex:pHuman ) ) > EquivalentClasses( Cat ObjectHasSelf( ex:pCat ) ) What you do, hence, is turn classes into relations: define two relations ex:pHuman and ex:pCat as diagonals of HumanxHuman, resp. CatxCat. Did I get it right? > SubObjectPropertyOf( ObjectPropertyChain( ex:pHuman owl:topObjectProperty > ex:pCat ) ex:love) "Loves" would now be a sub-relation of the composite "pHuman o ThingxThing o pCat," is that so? It certainly makes sense, though I feel rather miffed by the fact that such a simple and mundane-looking FOL statement requires such an excruciatingly complicated workaround in order to be represented in OWL2. Would I not run into problems with a reasoner such as Pellet, now that I've resorted to this type of rendering? Many thanks, C
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 14:30:15 UTC