- From: Rogier Brussee <rogier.brussee@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:13:31 +0100
- To: SWIG <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>, jos.deroo@agfa.com, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn>
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:22:57 +0800, Yuzhong Qu <yzqu@seu.edu.cn> wrote: > It seems to me that: > > what CIFP means is very close to that intersectionOf(r1, r2, ..., rn) is a reverse functional property. > [snip] Except that it is not so clear what the domain (i.e. "outcome") of :cifp is. > > > I did just a 5 min test with Cwm and Euler :) > > > > > > given data > > > > > > :a :r1 :b. > > > :a :r2 :c. > > > :g :r1 :b. > > > :g :r2 :c. > > > :p :cifp (:r1 :r2). > > It seems to me that the "combined inversefunctional property" is not a primitive notion. It seems more natural and general to have a notion of productProperty (or combined property) which can in particular be inverse functional. Thus I would replace the last sentence by : :p :productProperty (:r1:r2). :p a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. :productProperty should model a list of simulaneous properties, and it seems easiest if it takes values in a list. To be of any use as an inverse functional property we have to assume that two lists are owl:sameAs if their entries are owl:sameAs and have the same order, just as Yuzhong Qu seems to suggest. We can define some rules capturing the notion of :productProperty. I have no rule engine around here but does something like this work ? :productProperty a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty; rdfs:domain rdf:Property. # bottom of recursion { ?p :productProperty ?L. ?L rdf:first ?q. ?L rdf:rest rdf:nil. } => { {?x ?q ?a} <=> {?x ?p ?A. ?A rdf:first ?a. ?A rdf:rest rdf:nil} } . #recursion { ?p :productProperty ?L. ?L rdf:first ?q. ?L rdf:rest ?M. ?r :productProperty ?M} => { {?x ?q ?a. ?x ?r ?B} <=> {?x ?p ?A. ?A rdf:first ?a. ?A rdf:rest ?B} }. # ?q :composition (?p rdf:first). ?r :composition (?p rdf:rest). Sigh > > > > > > and some rules capturing only cases for 1, 2 and 3 cifp properties > > > > > > {?C :cifp ?L. > > > ?L rdf:first ?P; > > > rdf:rest rdf:nil. > > > ?A ?P ?X. > > > ?B ?P ?X} > > > => > > > {?A owl:sameAs ?B}. > > > > > > {?C :cifp ?L. > > > ?L rdf:first ?P; > > > rdf:rest ?M. > > > ?M rdf:first ?Q; > > > rdf:rest rdf:nil. > > > ?A ?P ?X; > > > ?Q ?Y. > > > ?B ?P ?X; > > > ?Q ?Y} > > > => > > > {?A owl:sameAs ?B}. > > > > > > {?C :cifp ?L. > > > ?L rdf:first ?P; > > > rdf:rest ?M. > > > ?M rdf:first ?Q; > > > rdf:rest ?N. > > > ?N rdf:first ?R; > > > rdf:rest rdf:nil. > > > ?A ?P ?X; > > > ?Q ?Y; > > > ?R ?Z. > > > ?B ?P ?X; > > > ?Q ?Y; > > > ?R ?Z} > > > => > > > {?A owl:sameAs ?B}. > > > > > > > > > the N3QL query > > > > > > [] q:select {?X owl:sameAs ?Y}; q:where {?X owl:sameAs ?Y}. > > > > > > gave us > > > > > > :a owl:sameAs :a. > > > :a owl:sameAs :g. > > > :g owl:sameAs :a. > > > :g owl:sameAs :g. > > > So nice. > > > > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 09:26:26 UTC