Re: An inconsistency or not?

I won't make inference like yours. Let's see what I think...

{
#A a owl:Class .
#B a owl:Class .
#C a owl:Class .
#D a owl:Class .
#A owl:intersectionOf #B , #C , #D ;
   owl:equivalentClass #B .
}
=>
{
#B rdfs:subClassOf #A , #B .
#C rdfs:subClassOf #A , #B .
#D rdfs:subClassOf #A , #B .
}


Jeremy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Minsu Jang" <minsu@etri.re.kr>
To: "Jeremy Wong" <50263336@student.cityu.edu.hk>; "Jon Hanna" <jon@hackcraft.net>; <semantic-web@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: An inconsistency or not?


> 
> 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>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>