- From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 May 2008 04:25:03 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-123 (QCR in OWL-R-Full): Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ Raised by: Ivan Herman On product: The current (2008-05-02) OWL-R Full rule set has some rules for handling a minimal version of cardinality constraints. Similar level of support for QCR-s is currently missing; for symmetry the following two rules could be added to the rule set: T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger) T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p) T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c) T(?u, ?p, ?y) T(?u, rdf:type, ?x) T(?y, rdf:type, ?c) => false ------------------------------------------------------------------- T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger) T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p) T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c) T(?u, ?p, ?y1) T(?u, ?p, ?y2) T(?u, rdf:type, ?x) T(?y1, rdf:type, ?c) T(?y2, rdf:type, ?c) => T(?y1, owl:sameAs, ?y2) I am not sure whether this is possible to add to OWL-R DL, though, without distorting the equivalence theorem between OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full
Received on Saturday, 3 May 2008 04:25:33 UTC