- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:36:05 +0100
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: connolly@w3.org, timbl@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org
we actually can work around using simply for example
{?A owl:equivalentClass owl:Nothing. ?X a ?A} => {}.
and then querying with the empty graph
I've changed http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/03swap/owl-rules
accordingly and the OWL inconsistency tests now run that way
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jos De_Roo
To: Tim Berners-Lee, Dan Connolly
29/12/2003 15:52 cc: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: use of log:inconsistentWith
Tim, Dan,
In my test case work there is some use of
log:inconsistentWith a rdf:Property;
rdfs:domain log:Formula;
rdfs:range log:Formula;
rdfs:comment """to say that F1 log:inconsistentWith F2
means that F1 and F2 cannot both be the case (F1 NAND F2)
or that either F1 is false or F2 is false (~F1 OR ~F2)""".
I am not expressing an inconsistency derivation as
{graph} => { } as we can't constructively prove false.
Instead I express it as
{graph} => {F1 log:inconsistentWith F2} and don't conclude
which one is false. This is up to an external actor...
I just wanted to make sure that I don't misuse the log:
namespace; is there an alternative (evt. log:nand, ...)??
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 22 March 2004 19:36:42 UTC