- From: Zhu Bin <zhubin@cai.pku.edu.cn>
- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 22:11:25 +0800
- To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org
Thank you very much. I haven't finish reading that paper, I know some relationship between DL and LP, and I know we can do some mappings from DL to def-Horn but not all. But when like the swrl example: Student(?x1) => Person(?x1) The example said that it is logically equivalent to write instead SubClassOf(Student Person), which one should I choose now? That is when I want to assert a subsumption relation, when should I use Rule language to assert? Only when we are using a ABox reasoner or other situation? -----Original Message----- > From: www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-rules-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Zhu Bin > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:57 PM > To: www-rdf-rules@w3.org > Subject: about last question Hi Zhu Bin, You cannot use OWL to express the uncle relationship. OWL is based on description logics, and it is known that description logics bear a number of expressiveness restrictions. That is why we need a rules language. The following is another example which cannot be captured in OWL, which is adapted from [1]. According to [1], the following cannot be described in OWL because "it is impossible to describe classes whose instances are related to another anonymous individual via different property paths." if job:worksFor(?x,?y) and life:livesIn(?x,?z) and geo:locatedIn(?y,?w) and geo:locatedIn(?z,?w) then job:HomeWorker(?x); Here, job:HomeWorker can only be defined in SWRL or other rules language. regards, Minsu [1] B. Grosof, I. Horrocks et al. "Description Logic Programms" (http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/p117-groso f.pdf)
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 09:13:15 UTC