- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:45:54 +0100
- To: Mike Smith <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: Antoine Zimmermann <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org>, W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
It isn't obvious to me why this wouldn't be an entailment under the RDF-Based semantics -- at least not at this time of night. Can you explain? Thanks, Ian On 10 Jun 2009, at 21:13, Mike Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 12:11, Antoine > Zimmermann<antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote: > >> I've browsed the test cases and observed a possible mistake in one >> of them. >> >> [ Test WebOnt-Restriction-005, Proposed (2009-06-08) [1]. ] > >> Now, unless I misinterpreted the RDF/XML syntax, I conclude that >> O1 entails >> O2, but the test says "negative entailment". > >> Am I missing something? > > No, I believe you are correct. In WebOnt, this was approved as a > negative entailment OWL Full test. I think that this is an entailment > that holds under the OWL 2 Direct Semantics but does not hold under > the RDF-Based semantics. > > There was a wg thread in Jan titled "The definition of entailment in > the Direct Semantics document" that touched on this issue as well. > > Thanks for noticing this, I will split the test in two and update the > meta-data accordingly. > -- > Mike Smith > > Clark & Parsia > >> [1] http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/ >> TestCase:WebOnt-Restriction-005 >
Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2009 23:46:35 UTC