Re: Representation of Negative Assertions in OWL 1.0

On Jun 8, 2008, at 3:35 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:

>>> Individual(Sarkozy type(Restriction(isPresidentOf allValuesFrom
>>> (complementOf(oneOf(USA))))))
>> what about:
>> Individual(Sarkozy
>> type(ObjectComplementOf(ObjectAllValuesFrom(isPresidentOf
>> ObjectOneOf(USA))))) ???

It may be intuitive, but I don't believe it captures what you want.  
It says that Sarkozy can't only be the the president of the USA.  
However he could be president of both the USA and France.

I've put these examples in an OWL file. If you classify it you will  
see that the previous two expressions (from earlier emails) are  
determined to be equivalent, and that there is no inconsistency in  
making Sarkozy a president of both USA and France, as I have done in  
the example.


> IMHO, the above representation is more intuitive than the  
> representations
> proposed by Alan and I and corresponds, in my mind, to the "closest"
> representation to the negative assertion 'Sarkozy is not the  
> President of the
> USA"
> Of course all these are logically equivalent representations, but  
> they have
> different connotations to the non-logically oriented subject matter
> expert/ontology engineer.
> This is precisely, why the syntactic sugar is a very good value add.
> ---Vipul
> 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 Sunday, 8 June 2008 22:18:33 UTC