W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Combined Inverse Functional Properties

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 06:58:56 -0500
To: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050215115856.GC8781@homer.w3.org>

* Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> [2005-02-15 12:29+0100]
> Here is the same idea, but put in terms of deductions.
> Assuming that R1 and R2 are CIFP relations on Class C1, the following
> would be the type of deduction I would be looking for.

Migrating an IRC discussion back into email from #foaf just now...:

<bblfish> sh1mmer: I have been thinking about CIFP's recently. You may
have seen my post on SemWeb.
* danbri suggests trying to write some N3 rules, see if Cwm or others
* tools can handle it...
<danbri> oh, re
<danbri> a ----R1----> b
<danbri> a ----R2----> c
<danbri> g ----R1----> b
<danbri> g ----R2----> c
<danbri> a -rdf:type-> C1
<danbri> g -rdf:type-> C1
<danbri> -------------------
<danbri> a--owl:sameAs--> g
<danbri> are the rdf:type arcs necessary?
<danbri> things have lots of types, and their descriptions don't always
mention then, so requiring a match on  rdf:type lowers the chance of the
rule firing
<bblfish> I am not sure if the rdf types are necessary, but I was
thinking of CIFP's as somewhat related to Class restrictions
<bblfish> but you are right, I could write that out as N3 rules.
<danbri> I don't think it works quite the same
<danbri> N3 plus a bunch of test cases is nearly all you need for a
decent definition of CIFP
<bblfish> yes. Perhaps that is all that sh1mmer needs too.
<danbri> I'd drop the rdf:type constraint, and add in, 'R1 rdf:type
util:CIFP','R2 rdf:type util:CIFP'

Anyone tried such things in Cwm, or other reasoners?

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 11:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:47:00 UTC