- From: Chris Purcell <cjp39@cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:28:37 +0100
- To: Jeremy Wong ?泓量 <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, ??? <minsu@etri.re.kr>
You assert:
card({...}) = 2
This is only true if John != Johnny, which we do not know. Your
argument is invalid.
> It is my second reply. Consider the interpretation of the cardinality
> restriction..
>
> {x ∈ O | card({y ∈ O∪LV : <x,y> ∈ ER(p)}) = n}
>
> Substitute n = 1, x = Harry, p = hasFather into the interpretation..
>
> {Harry ∈ O | card({y ∈ O∪LV : <Harry,y> ∈ ER(hasFather)}) = 1}
>
> Then..
>
> {y ∈ {S(John),S(Johnny)} | card({John ∈ O∪LV : <Harry,y> ∈
> ER(hasFather)}) = 2 <> 1}
>
> Therefore the restriction (class axiom?), restriction(hasFather
> cardinality(1)), is not satisified. Hence the collection of axioms is
> not consistent.
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2005 23:28:42 UTC