- 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
* 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...: http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/chatlogs/foaf/2005-02-15#T11-57-23 <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? Dan
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 11:58:58 UTC