- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:01:24 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <connolly@w3.org>, <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F. > Patel-Schneider > Sent: 23 April 2002 10:51 > To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com > Cc: connolly@w3.org; jonathan@openhealth.org; www-webont-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: SEM: circular primitive > > > From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> > Subject: RE: SEM: circular primitive > Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:20:10 +0100 > > [...] > > > Showing that I am still playing the game according to my preferred > > rules of discussing concrete cases in sufficient, but hopefully > > not exhaustive detail, let us consider Peter's child case. > > > > (In this case I fear it is exhausting but not exhaustive!) > > > > > R: > > > > > KB1: > > > John rdf:type Person . > > > Bill rdf:type Person . > > > John child Bill . > > > > entailing > > KB2: > > > John rdf:type _:1 . > > > _:1 rdf:type daml:Restriction . > > > _:1 rdf:onProperty child . > > > _:1 rdf:hasClass :_1 . > > > I personally think this, as stated, is false. But like Jonathan > > I think it points to an important use case, for which I will give > > my treatment. > > > I think R is false because: > > If R is true then the premises also entail that > > KB3: > > Bill rdf:type _:1 . > > Please explain. It is true that KB1 entails KB3, of course, because, there > is a type for Bill, namely Person. However, how can KB1 entail KB2 plus > KB3 (taken as a single graph)? Bill does not have a child, so he does not > satisfy the conditions on _:1 in KB2. I took you to arguing that KB1 entails KB2. Hence KB1 entails KB1 plus KB2 (taken as a single graph). (KB1 is ground) KB1 plus KB2 entail KB2 plus KB3. (because given that John rdf:type _:1 . the restriction restricts Bill, the object of the child property). Is that enough? Or do I need to go further? > > > and hence > > > > Bill child _:x . > > _:x rdf:type _:1 . > > > > and I do not think that the premises should license the first triple > > of such a conclusion. > > peter > > Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 08:02:20 UTC