- From: Kashyap, Vipul <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:37:42 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-owl-wg Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Kashyap, Vipul" <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>
Am not sure whether Alan's explanation in the earlier e-mail addresses how this use case can be represented in OWL 1.1. Maybe he can elaborate. Or, is the solution of this use case subsumed by the solution for n-ary data types? In general one could define a class called EnrolledAndTestedPatient which can be defined as: Patient that hasTest some AdministeredTest and hasClinicalTrial some EnrolledTrial So I would still need to represent the constraint: hasTest o enrollemntDate > hasClinicalTrial o emrollmentDate + 60. Jeremy's suggestion of a posthoc SPARQL query makes sense, but then would the results be available to the reasoner for further reasoning? What if I wanted to check whether this patient is a member of the class EnrolledAndRecentlyTestedPatient? Would be great if I can get some clarification, before I agree to close this issue? Thanks, ---Vipul > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kashyap, Vipul > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:18 PM > To: Jeremy Carroll; Alan Ruttenberg > Cc: public-owl-wg Group WG > Subject: RE: ISSUE-5: n-ary datatypes - use cases ISSUE-53 > > > > Have been on travel for the last few weeks. So could not follow up. > > Will follow up on the discussion thread. It will help > greatly, if you can > point to the place in the discussion which identifies how > the current OWL 1.1 spec supports that use case? > > Thanks, > > ---Vipul > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 2:01 PM > > To: Alan Ruttenberg > > Cc: public-owl-wg Group WG; Kashyap, Vipul > > Subject: Re: ISSUE-5: n-ary datatypes - use cases ISSUE-53 > > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > > > > > Based on this, I propose we close ISSUE-53. > > > > I would not be unhappy - but it's Vipul's issue, if he wishes to > > withdraw it before it gets much discussion .... > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > The information transmitted in this electronic communication > is intended only > for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may > contain confidential > and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, > dissemination or other > use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this > information by persons or > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If > you received this > information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine > at 800-856-1983 and > properly dispose of this information. > > >
Received on Monday, 19 November 2007 19:37:58 UTC