- From: Mikhail Khlopotov <mik@chel.com.ru>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:34:37 +0500
- To: minsu@etri.re.kr, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Minsu Jang wrote: >To me, Jos De_Roo's solution looks like a nice one >illustrating the complementary roles of rules and ontology. > >But, it'd be more concise to me if there were two rules; >one for expressing the semantics of owl:TransitiveProperty, >and another for relating 'worksFor' and 'consistsOf'. Here's >my take: > >[Ontology Part] >:consistsOf a owl:TransitiveProperty. >:aCompany :consistsOf :rAndD. >:rAndD :consistsOf :gSw. >:gSw :consistsOf :gSwBe. >:mk :worksFor :gSwBe. > >[Rule Part 1: OWL Semantics] >if owl:TransitiveProperty(?p) and ?p(?x,?y) and ?p(?y,?z) >then ?p(?x,?z); > >[Rule Part 2: TransitiveOver Property] >if worksFor(?a,?b) and consistsOf(?b,?c) >then worksFor(?a,?c); > >We need semantic web rules. > Ok, I agree rules will do this fine. The reason for me to see transitiveOver on OWL was that rdfs:subClassOf & rdf:type already are transitiveOver, so it seemed logical to me to have this relation defined directly. [Went reading about WS Rules ;-)] Mikhail Khlopotov South Ural State University, Russia
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 03:34:51 UTC