Re: Superfluous rules in OWL 2 RL spec

Rinke,

You are right. We can take them out if Boris and others agree. They are 
not harmful though.

Thanks,

Zhe

Rinke Hoekstra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that rules cax-eqc1 and cax-eqc2 in Table 7 are 
> superfluous given the cax-sco rule in the same table, and scm-eqc in 
> Table 9.
>
> See the rules below.
>
> -Rinke
>
>
> scm-eqc    
> IF
>   T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)    
> THEN
>   T(?c1, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c2)
>   T(?c2, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c1)
>
> cax-sco    
> IF
>   T(?c1, rdfs:subClassOf, ?c2)
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)    
> THEN
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
>
> cax-eqc1    
> IF
>   T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)    
> THEN
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
>
> cax-eqc2    
> IF
>   T(?c1, owl:equivalentClass, ?c2)
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)    
> THEN
>   T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 21 November 2008 17:04:24 UTC