- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 01:29:00 +0100
- To: <minsu@etri.re.kr>
- Cc: "'www-rdf-logic'" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, mik@chel.com.ru
Minsu 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); Right and in N3 [1][2] we write that as {?P a owl:TransitiveProperty. ?X ?P ?Y. ?Y ?P ?Z} => {?X ?P ?Z}. not sure however if :consistsOf was intended to be transitive ?? > [Rule Part 2: TransitiveOver Property] > if worksFor(?a,?b) and consistsOf(?b,?c) > then worksFor(?a,?c); I guess it's consistsOf(?c,?b) ?? but indeed and I tried to catch that in {?P :transitiveOver ?Q. ?c ?Q ?b. ?a ?P ?b} => {?a ?P ?c}. which takes care of the ?P closure > We need semantic web rules. I believe so too :) -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/doc/ [2] http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Notation3.html
Received on Monday, 5 January 2004 19:29:08 UTC