- From: Jeremy Wong 黃泓量 <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 20:04:34 +0800
- To: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Oh I am really sorry.. I'm always dreaming, the 2nd time making such kind of mistake... -_- the 5 facts should be.. <#A> rdf:type <#X> . <#B> rdf:type <#X> , <#Y> . <#C> rdf:type <#X> , <#Z> . => <#X> rdfs:subClassOf <#Y> , <#Z> . => <#X> owl:intersectionOf ( <#Y> , <#Z> ) . Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Purcell" <cjp39@cam.ac.uk> To: "Jeremy Wong 黃泓量" <50263336@student.cityu..edu.hk> Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 7:45 PM Subject: Re: Rule-based approach to conclude owl:intersectionOf > Here is an example of the situation... > > # only5 facts in total > <#X> rdf:type <#A> . > <#Y> rdf:type <#A> , <#B> . > <#Z> rdf:type <#A> , <#C> . > > => > > # conclusion of the 5 facts > <#X> rdfs:subClassOf <#Y> , <#Z> . This doesn't make any sense. #X is of type #A -- how do you then conclude that #X is a class? Or that it is related to #Y in any way? Did you mean the following? <#X> owl:unionOf ( <#A> ) <#Y> owl:unionOf ( <#A>, <#B> ) <#Z> owl:unionOf ( <#A>, <#C> ) Chris
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 13:17:32 UTC