- From: Monika Solanki <monika@dmu.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:52:56 +0000
- To: public-sws-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3FAF51E8.7010903@dmu.ac.uk>
Ian Horrocks wrote: >On November 7, Monika Solanki writes: > > >>Hi Ian, >> >>Thanks for the reply!!!! >> >>I have a confusion regarding "sameIndividualAtom". Although I have dome >>some kind of refinement over my earlier version, that did not use >>"sameIndividualAtom", but somehow I still feel that "sameIndividualAtom" >>is the way to go. >> >>I want to restate the problem. >> >>I define a variable >> >><owl:Variable rdf:ID="acctID"/> >> >>and I have an individual of class Input defined as >> >><process:Input rdf:ID="AccID"> >>.... >>.... >></process:Input> >> >>Now, what I want to say is that the variable is actually an individual >>and is the same as the individual, AcctID, and this is the one which >>should be used for defining further property predicates. >> >>I feel, I can use "sameIndividualAtom" to express this and the >>semantics would not be affected, so will this be valid? >> >><owl: sameIndividualAtom > >> <owl:Variable rdf:about ="#acctID"/> >> <owl::Individual rdf:about="AcctID"/> >></owl:sameIndividualAtom> >> >>I have changed owl:name to rdf:about >> >> > >This is a legal atom. It is satisfied by a binding just in case the >variable and the individual are interpreted as the same object. I'm >not quite sure, though, why you would want to do this rather than just >using the individual itself for defining further property predicates. > > Oh, I thought that was not allowed. I was under the impression that only elements defined as variables can be used within property predicates, or does it mean that I can declare variabls. to be an individual e.g <process:Input rdf:ID="AccID"> .... .... </process:Input> <owl:Variable rdf:about="#AcctID"/> Will this be correct?, if so, it will be very convenient to use. >Ian > > > > >>Thanks, >> >>Monika >> >>Ian Horrocks wrote: >> >> >> >>>On November 1, Monika Solanki writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Hello Ian and Peter, >>>> >>>>I have been studying the OWL Rule language. I am a bit confused over >>>>the interpretation atoms in general and Class atom in particular. >>>> >>>>As mentioned in the doc, >>>>Informally, an atom C(x) holds if x is an instance of the class >>>>description C >>>> >>>>So, what is the interpretation of this: >>>> >>>><owlx:classAtom> >>>> <owlx:Class owlx:name="Person" /> >>>> <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x1" /> >>>></owlx:classAtom> >>>> >>>> >>>>Does it mean that x1 is an instance of Class C ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Informally, if it is in an antecedent then it is a condition that is >>>satisfied whenever x1 binds to an object that is an instance of C; if >>>it is in a consequent, then it is an assertion that the object x1 is >>>bound to is an instance of C. >>> >>>Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Thanks, >>>> >>>>Monika >>>> >>>>-- >>>>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >>>>Monika Solanki >>>>Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) >>>>De Montfort University >>>>Hawthorn building, H00.18 >>>>The Gateway >>>>Leicester LE1 9BH, UK >>>> >>>>phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 >>>>email: monika@dmu.ac.uk >>>>web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika >>>>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >>Monika Solanki >>Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) >>De Montfort University >>Hawthorn building, H00.18 >>The Gateway >>Leicester LE1 9BH, UK >> >>phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 >>email: monika@dmu.ac.uk >>web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika >>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >> >><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> >><html> >><head> >> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> >> <title></title> >></head> >><body> >>Hi Ian,<br> >><br> >>Thanks for the reply!!!!<br> >><br> >>I have a confusion regarding "sameIndividualAtom". Although I have dome some >>kind of refinement over my earlier version, that did not use "sameIndividualAtom", >>but somehow I still feel that "sameIndividualAtom" is the way to go.<br> >><br> >>I want to restate the problem.<br> >><br> >>I define a variable <br> >><br> >><owl:Variable rdf:ID="acctID"/><br> >><br> >>and I have an individual of class Input defined as <br> >><br> >><process:Input rdf:ID="AccID"><br> >>....<br> >>....<br> >></process:Input><br> >><br> >>Now, what I want to say is that the variable is actually an individual and >>is the same as the individual, AcctID, and this is the one which should be >>used for defining further property predicates. <br> >><br> >>I feel, I can use "sameIndividualAtom" to express this and the semantics >>would not be affected, so will this be valid?<br> >><br> >><owl: sameIndividualAtom ><br> >> <owl:Variable rdf:about ="#acctID"/><br> >> <owl::Individual rdf:about="AcctID"/><br> >></owl:sameIndividualAtom><br> >><br> >>I have changed owl:name to rdf:about <br> >><br> >>Thanks,<br> >><br> >>Monika<br> >><br> >>Ian Horrocks wrote:<br> >><blockquote type="cite" >> cite="mid16298.45218.115266.619802@merlin.horrocks.net"> >> <pre wrap="">On November 1, Monika Solanki writes: >> </pre> >> <blockquote type="cite"> >> <pre wrap="">Hello Ian and Peter, >> >>I have been studying the OWL Rule language. I am a bit confused over >>the interpretation atoms in general and Class atom in particular. >> >>As mentioned in the doc, >>Informally, an atom C(x) holds if x is an instance of the class >>description C >> >>So, what is the interpretation of this: >> >><owlx:classAtom> >> <owlx:Class owlx:name="Person" /> >> <owlx:Variable owlx:name="x1" /> >></owlx:classAtom> >> >> >>Does it mean that x1 is an instance of Class C ? >> </pre> >> </blockquote> >> <pre wrap=""><!----> >>Informally, if it is in an antecedent then it is a condition that is >>satisfied whenever x1 binds to an object that is an instance of C; if >>it is in a consequent, then it is an assertion that the object x1 is >>bound to is an instance of C. >> >>Ian >> >> </pre> >> <blockquote type="cite"> >> <pre wrap="">Thanks, >> >>Monika >> >>-- >>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >>Monika Solanki >>Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) >>De Montfort University >>Hawthorn building, H00.18 >>The Gateway >>Leicester LE1 9BH, UK >> >>phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 >>email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:monika@dmu.ac.uk">monika@dmu.ac.uk</a> >>web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika">http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika</a> >>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >> </pre> >> </blockquote> >> <pre wrap=""><!----> >> </pre> >></blockquote> >><br> >><div class="moz-signature">-- <br> >>**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** >><br> >> Monika Solanki<br> >> Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL)<br> >> De Montfort University<br> >> Hawthorn building, H00.18 <br> >> The Gateway <br> >> Leicester LE1 9BH, UK <br> >><br> >> phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 <br> >> email: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:monika@dmu.ac.uk">monika@dmu.ac.uk</a> <br> >> web: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika">http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika</a><br> >> **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**</div> >><br> >></body> >></html> >> >> > > > -- **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** Monika Solanki Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) De Montfort University Hawthorn building, H00.18 The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH, UK phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 email: monika@dmu.ac.uk web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** -- **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<** Monika Solanki Software Technology Research Laboratory(STRL) De Montfort University Hawthorn building, H00.18 The Gateway Leicester LE1 9BH, UK phone: +44 (0)116 250 6170 intern: 6170 email: monika@dmu.ac.uk web: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~monika **>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**>><<**
Received on Monday, 10 November 2003 03:46:37 UTC