- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:41:28 +0000
- To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > Hmmm, this is tricky, harder than I thought. Michael Schneider came to my rescue! http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0261 Simplifying his comment. > > Some examples. I'm struggling as to the discussion. > > > Example 1: > Consistent: This is consistent in OWL 1.1 DL, but inconsistent in OWL 1.0 Full. So this presents a difficulty with OWL 1.1 Full semantics since we either have to break compatibility with OWL 1.0 Full or OWL 1.1 DL, both of which are important. > [punning on eg:p] > > eg:a rdf:type owl:Thing . > eg:a eg:p eg:a . > eg:p rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . > eg:p rdf:type owl:DataProperty . > _:r rdf:type owl:DataRestriction . > _:r owl:maxCardinality "0"^^xsd:int . > _:r owl:onProperty eg:p . > eg:a rdf:type _:r . > In OWL 1.0 Full: Since eg:p is a DataProperty eg:a is a literal, and has at least one literal eg:p value, and is hence not in the restriction _:r. So I retract my earlier agreement with Peter of not seeing a problem. (Well I didn't see it) Jeremy
Received on Friday, 21 December 2007 15:41:58 UTC