W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > November 2000

Re: Proposed revision to daml-ont

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:00:37 -0600
Message-ID: <3A1C9665.2F50C2D9@w3.org>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Dan Connolly wrote:
> Ian Horrocks wrote:
> [...]
> > The DAML-OIL proposal can be found at:
> >
> >         http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML-OIL

> This one seems broken:
>  #3. The semantics of restrictions has been changed...
> I'll explain why in a separate message.

Hmm... I take it back. I got the impression that the
sematnics of restrictions was based on the XML syntax,
which, at the RDF graph level, looks like using

But now that I look closely at the semantics, I see
it's specified in RDF terms, i.e. in triples:

| <type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <toClass,?R,?C> 
|    x in IC(?R) iff IR(?P)({x}) <= IC(?C) 
| <type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <toValue,?R,?V> 
|     x in IC(?R) iff <x,IO(?V)> in IR(?P) 

Let me check my understanding with an example...
let's say a Square is a RegularPolyhedron
with numberOfSides=4:

	<type,Square,Restriction> <onProperty,Square,numberOfSides>

	x in IC(Square) iff <x,4> in IR(numberOfSides)

oops... no, that's not right... rather:

	<intersectionOf,Square,[RegularPolyhedron, FourSidedThing]>

which will end up with

	x in IC(FourSidedThing) iff <x,4> in IR(numberOfSides)
	x in IC(Square) iff x in IC(FourSidedThing)
		and x in IC(RegularPolyhedron)

Yes, that works.

I'm still not certain there are no closed-world assumptions...
I'll try to study the semantics some more. But the problem
that I initially thought was there isn't.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2000 23:00:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:45:35 UTC