Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples

From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 22:36:45 +0200

> 
> > Here is another test case
> >
> > R:
> >      John rdf:type Person .
> >      Bill rdf:type Person .
> >      John child Bill .
> > entailing
> >      John rdf:type _:1 .
> >      _:1 rdf:type daml:Restriction .
> >      _:1 rdf:onProperty child .
> >      _:1 rdf:hasClass :_1 .
> >
> > This is a very different situation from that in Jeremy's cases, even case C.
> 
> Peter, it is _:label ;-) (just think about an anonymous namespace prefix)
> 
> could it be that that restriction is the class Person itself???

Well, this is *possible*, depending on how the semantics works out.
However, to get it to work, the semantic needs some sort of comprehension
principle that generates restrictions with loops in them.

> at least that's what we get after some testing
> 
>   ( <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/psra.n3>
>     <http://www.w3.org/2001/10/daml+oil#> )
>     log:entails
>     <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/n3/psrc.n3> .
> 
> i.e.
> 
>   :John a :Person .
>   :Bill a :Person .
>   :John :child :Bill .
> 
> OWL-entails
> 
>   :John a ( owl:Restriction _:x owl:onProperty :child owl:hasClass _:x ) .
> 
> we use http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3
> more specifically entailment rule9g and rule9h
> which is using shorthand () list notation
> (maybe too liberal, but this is just testing...)
> 
> the proof argument we find is
> 
>    {
>       <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule9h> .
>     :Bill a :Person.
>     :John :child :Bill} log:implies
>   {:John a ( owl:Restriction :Person owl:onProperty :child owl:hasClass
> :Person)}. 
> 
> speaking about selfreference...

I am confused as to what this syntax means.  Could you translate it back to
RDF?  In particular, does this mean that Person ends up with a restriction
on it, or is Person itself a restriction?

> --
> Jos

peter

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 04:07:33 UTC