- From: Minsu Jang <minsu@etri.re.kr>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:40:24 +0900
- To: Jeremy Wong <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thanks to all who replied with helpful discussions. Now, I can conclude that any two individuals with different names can be thought of as being equal if there's a set of sentences that entails the equality of the two, even though there's no explicit assertion that they are equal. Now I can see the above conclusion is quite obvious. But then, I think it suggests many difficult cases for which inference rules cannot easily be written. Consider the following entailment. (I guess this entailment is correct.) A rdf:type owl:Class. B rdf:type owl:Class. C rdf:type owl:Class. D rdf:type owl:Class. A owl:intersectionOf [B, C, D]. A owl:equivalentClass B. ---> A owl:equivalentClass C. A owl:equivalentClass D. B owl:equivalentClass C. B owl:equivalentClass D. C owl:equivalentClass D. Can any OWL reasoner do this kind of entailment? I'm curious to know, as I'm experiencing a lot of difficulty due to the cases like above in revising a set of OWL inference rules for my production rule engine. Cheers, Minsu Jang On 2005.3.31 12:56 PM, "Jeremy Wong" <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk> wrote: > > > Thanks for the explaination. Having the interpretation, both situations > (owl:sameAs, owl:differentFrom) can be assumed. Consider if John > owl:differentFrom Johnny is assumed, then the restriction is not satisified. > Therefore this assumption doesn't satisify. Consider if John owl:sameAs > Johnny is assumed, then the restriction is satisified. Therefore the facts > and the axioms are consistent :). > > > Jeremy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Hanna" <jon@hackcraft.net> > To: "'Jeremy Wong'" <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>; <semantic-web@w3.org> > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:31 AM > Subject: RE: An inconsistency or not? > > >> Poor my English -_-. Can you explain more on interpreting the >> sentence >> involved? > > "...assume either situation is possible" means to keep an open mind on the > subject as two which situation is the actual case, in other words to not > assume that one particular situation is the case (until such a time as this > is either stated directly, or can be deduced from what is stated). > > Regards, > Jon Hanna > Work: <http://www.selkieweb.com/> > Play: <http://www.hackcraft.net/> > Chat: <irc://irc.freenode.net/selkie> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 04:40:30 UTC