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