- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 12:44:52 -0500 (EST)
- To: kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
From: "Dimitrios A. Koutsomitropoulos" <kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr> Subject: RE: NEWBIE: Property restriction semantics Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 19:27:09 +0200 > > Thanks indeed! It seems more clear now. However... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-webont-comments-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-webont-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 5:49 PM > > To: kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr > > Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org > > Subject: Re: NEWBIE: Property restriction semantics > > > > > > From: "Dimitrios A. Koutsomitropoulos" > > <kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr> > > Subject: Re: NEWBIE: Property restriction semantics > > Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:26:09 +0200 > > > > > > > > > > > Let's consider the following modification of Brian's example: > > > > > > > > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="Student"/> > > > > > > <owl:ObjectProperty rdf:ID="hasGrade"> <rdfs:domain > > > rdf:resource="#Student"/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="#Grade"/> > > > </owl:ObjectProperty> > > > > > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="FailedStudent"> > > > <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="#Student"/> <owl:equivalentClass> > > > <!-- instead of subClassOf --> > > > <owl:Restriction> > > > </owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasGrade"/> > > > </owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#Failed"/> > > > </owl:Restriction> > > > </owl:subClassOf> > > > </owl:Class> > > > > > > And just assert that Brian isA FailedStudent: > > > > > > <FailedStudent rdf:ID="Brian" /> > > > > > > Would this imply that Brian hasGrade Failed? > > ...by "Brian hasGrade Failed" I do not mean that "Brian in hasGrade:Failed" > which I can understand. I mean if the actual role filler for instance:Brian > and Role:hasGrade will be the instance:Failed. Well, you are now going beyond the logic. As far as the logic is concerned Brian in hasGrade:Failed is how you say that Brian's grade is Failed so there is no distinction that can be made in the logic. > For example, Racer does not seem to infer this... Perhaps RACER makes a distinction between actual fillers and inferred concept membership. This is not sanctioned by the logic, so RACER is on its own here. > > Yes. Note, however, that this inference would also be valid > > in the original example. Note also that your example doesn't > > make much sense, as it has lots of unusual consequences. > > > > This is yet another case where the RDF/XML syntax is not > > helpful, as it obscures the real semantic relationships. > > What you have done is define FailedStudent as follows > > > > > > FailedStudent <= Student > > FailedStudent = hasGrade : Failed > > > > >From this you can infer > > > > hasGrade:Failed <= Student > > > > i.e., any thing that has a failing grade (perhaps in love, > > for example) would be a Student. What you probably want is > > > > FailedStudent = Student & hasGrade:Failed > > > > or > > > > FailedStudent <= Student & hasGrade:Failed > > > > In both these cases > > > > Brian in FailedStudent > > > > implies > > > > Brian in hasGrade:Failed > > > > > > > I would be really happy for any feedback on this! > > > > > > Many thanks, > > > > > > > > > Dimitris Koutsomitropoulos > > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 February 2004 12:45:22 UTC