Re: rule question

paolo veronelli wrote:

> And one last (for today)
> 
> facts:
> 
> x1,p,y1
> x1,rdf:type,c1
> p,rdf:domain,c2
> 
> (c1!=c2)
> 
> inference:
> 
> c1,rdf:subClassOf,c2
> 
> looks a little better,but...

I don't think that's right.

  x1 p y1 .
  x1 rdf:type c1 .
  p rdfs:domain c2 .
=>
  x1 rdf:type c2 .

So x1 is both type c1 and c2.

If by "(c1 != c2)" you mean they are resources with different URIs then 
there is no problem with x1 having both types and there is no implication 
of any subclass relationships between the types. It means that the classes 
overlap but that doesn't mean one contains the other.

If by "(c1 != c2)" you mean "c1 owl:disjointWith c2" then the combination 
of that with the above inferences is inconsistent.

Dave

Received on Tuesday, 20 July 2004 05:42:10 UTC