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

Re: Combined Inverse Functional Properties

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:04:22 +0100
Message-Id: <12f82da8d2e2002d0b86111f69fe75ef@bblfish.net>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

On 15 Feb 2005, at 13:09, Dan Brickley wrote:
> <bblfish> mind you I think the R1 rdf:type util:CIFP won't work. It is
> too general. One needs a way of grouping CIFPs somehow (C stands for
> combined), or else all there will only
> <bblfish> be CIFPs one large CIFP group. I think that is why I was
> thinking of them as a little like restrictions.
> <danbri> yeah fair point, sorry, typed before thinking
> <danbri> all i meant really was, put all the assumptions explicitly 
> into
> the ruleset
> <bblfish> yes, quite right.
> cheers,
> Dan

Yes but I think it is close.

CIFP definition

So I think one could in OWL define a CIFP class to be a subclass of an 
unordered list, where all the members of the list a relations.

The rule

Then one would have to specify the rule that for every relation R1, R2, 
of the list

when the following two groups of statements are true:

s1 R1 o1
s1 R2 o2
s1 Rn on

s2 R1 o1
s2 R2 o2
s2 Rn on

then one can conclude that

s1 owl:sameAs s2

I think that captures the general idea of CIFPs quite nicely.

An example

So let us say that (:lon, :lat) is a CIFP list.


_geo :lon "49.0"
_geo :lat "52.0"

_geo2 :lon "49.0"
_geo2 :lat "52.0"

Then clearly _geo owl:sameAs _geo2

So it just remains to formalize the above intuition in N3 for cwm
(which will take me a little time to learn)

Henry Story
Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 13:04:26 UTC

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