- From: Tim Finin <finin@cs.umbc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 14:06:30 -0400
- To: "'Ian Horrocks'" <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Marcelo Tallis'" <mtallis@teknowledge.com>
- Cc: "'David Martin'" <martin@ai.sri.com>, "'Dan Connolly'" <connolly@w3.org>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
> From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks > ... > Another possible interpretation is some sort of "role value > map", as it is called in description logics. i.e., we may > want to say that for all pairs of individuals (x,y) related > by some property P (or some chain of properties), the P1 > property of x and the P2 property of y must have the same > individual as their objects. I believe that we can't capture > this in DAML+OIL - if we can then we made some mistake > somewhere as the language would certainly be undecidable. I understood that this was what David needs, or something close to it. We want to be able to say, for example, that a Process has two steps and that the output of step one must be the same individual as the input of step two. If we don't have this in our language then it may be very hard to model complex processes which have sub-processes that have constraints between them. For that matter, it will be hard to model complex things composed of parts which have constraints among them. Tim
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2001 14:05:51 UTC