- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 05:13:33 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <3AB97CD4-904B-4274-A153-4EEA7E81925A@gmail.com>
Can this be fixed by using a different property than owl:maxCardinality? e.g. _:y rdf:type owl:Restriction _:y owl:maxQualifiedCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger _:y owl:onProperty child _:y owl11:onClass Person i.e. s/owl:maxCardinality/owl:maxQualifiedCardinality/ -Alan On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Qualified Cardinalities in OWL 1.1 Full > > > Suppose that we want to keep the general flavour of the OWL Full > semantics *and* use the current OWL 1.1 mapping to RDF. What would > happen? > > > Here is an example of how the RDF mapping works (roughly). > > ObjectMaxCardinality(2 child) expands to: > > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction > _:x owl:maxCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger > _:x owl:onProperty child > > ObjectMaxCardinality(2 child Person) expands to: > > _:y rdf:type owl:Restriction > _:y owl:maxCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger > _:y owl:onProperty child > _:y owl11:onClass Person > > Note especially that the first set of triples is a "subset" of the > second set. > > > The OWL 1.0 Full semantics says that the class extension of _:x is the > set of objects that are related to at most two objects via the > property > extension of child. A similar-style OWL 1.1 Full semantics would say > that the class extension of _:y is the set of objects that are related > to at most two objects that belong to the class extension of Person > via > the property extension of child. > > However, the OWL 1.1 Full semantics would then also include the OWL > 1.0 > Full semantics. So, part of the meaning of the last four triples > (actually the first three of these four, but that doesn't matter) > in OWL > 1.1 Full would be that the class extension of _:y would *as well* > be the > set of objects that are related to at most 2 objects via the property > extension of child. > > So, if o is in the class extension of _:y then it is related to at > most > two objects that belong to the class extension of Person via the > property extension of child *and* it is related to at most two objects > via the property extension of child. It is impossible to have a > max-QCR > without this double meaning. > > > > peter >
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 05:13:50 UTC