RE: a possible syntax error in equivalentProperty/premises005 ?

Ian and Jeremy,

Thanks so much for clarification.

Now, I understand the meaning of the document, in Full. :-)

Best,
Minsu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:01 PM
> To: minsu@etri.re.kr; public-webont-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: a possible syntax error in 
> equivalentProperty/premises005 ?
> 
> 
> 
> [[
>  <owl:Restriction rdf:nodeID="d">
>   <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#p"/>
>   <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#q"/>
>   <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#v"/>
>  </owl:Restriction>
> 
> According to AS&S, this looks invalid, because restrictions can have
> only one
> individualvaluedPropertyID or datavaluedPropertyID.
> 
> But, Jena[1] and OWL Ontology Validator[2] successfully parse the
> document.
> I'm confused. Any comments on this?
> ]]
> 
> The test states that the file is in OWL Full.
> This agrees with your observation, that in OWL DL, S&AS says 
> that this is 
> not permitted.
> Any RDF document is an OWL Full document.
> 
> The OWL Full semantics is given in section 5 of S&AS and we read:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2
> 
> Conditions on OWL restrictions
> [[
> if
> <x,y>∈EXTI(SI(owl:hasValue))) ∧
> <x,p>∈EXTI(SI(owl:onProperty)))
> then
> ]]
> 
> 
> and we see that both properties fulfil this condition.
> 
> Hence the expression is semantically equivalent to something like:
> 
> <owl:Restriction rdf:nodeID="d">
>     <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#q"/>
>     <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#v"/>
>     <owl:eqivalentClass>
>        <owl:Restriction>
>           <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#p"/>
>           <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#v"/>
>        </owl:Restriction>
>     </owl:equivalentClass>
> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> 
> The software you mention should report that the test file is in Full.
> 
> Jeremy
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2003 18:52:38 UTC