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

Fw: Some fuzzy with cardinality restriction vs complex property in OWL

From: Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:11:26 +0800
Message-ID: <00ad01c513ee$59377cc0$fd0b77ca@xobjects>
To: "SWIG" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Two questions have not yet gotten answered. See below for more details.

Thanks for your help in advance!


Yuzhong Qu

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Yuzhong Qu 
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org 
Cc: Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:35 PM
Subject: Some fuzzy with cardinality restriction vs complex property in OWL 


The OWL S&AS says:

To preserve decidability of reasoning in OWL Lite, not all properties can have cardinality restrictions placed on them or be specified as functional or inverse-functional. An individual-valued property is complex if 
1/ it is specified as being functional or inverse-functional, 
2/ there is some cardinality restriction that uses it, 
3/ it has an inverse that is complex, or 
4/ it has a super-property that is complex. 
Complex properties cannot be specified as being transitive. 


It seems OK, but some mistiness arises when diving into the deeps.

We know that:

someValuesFrom(owl:Thing) is logically equivalent to minCardinality(1)

and someValuesFrom(SomeNonEmptyClass) logically implies minCardinality(1)

My questions:

1. Suppose there is an existential restriction that uses a property, should the property be considered as a complex property?

It seems not. But how to explain the implication of the above axioms? 


2. Is there any meaning with minCardinality(0)? does it make the corresponding property become a complex property?

e.g.

restriction( myProperty minCardinality(0)) makes myProperty become a complex property?


Thanks for your concern!


Yuzhong Qu 


Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 06:11:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:44 UTC