Re: QCR problem in OWL 1.1 Full - action ?? from F2F

Yes indeed.  

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: QCR problem in OWL 1.1 Full - action ?? from F2F
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 05:13:33 +0000

> 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 Sunday, 9 December 2007 13:38:42 UTC