Yes, Samson, that's a great reminder. I think that Lloyd may have stated that earlier - but I didn't repeat it, and it's pretty easy to overlook. Rob On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:36 AM, Samson Tu <swt@stanford.edu> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Robert Hausam <rrhausam@gmail.com> wrote: > > Lloyd, that's certainly correct with the "upper bound", given the > conditions that you describe. If an instance has 5 of "something" when > it's declared that it should have 4, then the reasoner can clearly > determine that the instance is invalid. > > > Not if the reasoner doesn’t know that the 5 “something” are different from > each other. In addition to OWA, OWL doesn’t make "unique name assumption" > (UNA). When checking cardinality constraints, in addition to OWA, you need > to state whether the individuals are distinct. > > SAmson > -- > Samson Tu email: > swt@stanford.edu > Senior Research Scientist web: > www.stanford.edu/~swt/ > Center for Biomedical Informatics Research phone: 1-650-725-3391 > Stanford University fax: > 1-650-725-7944 > > > > > > -- Robert Hausam, MD Hausam Consulting LLC +1 (801) 949-1556 rrhausam@gmail.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 17:17:32 UTC