- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 24 Apr 2002 11:03:56 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 16:19, Dan Connolly wrote: > On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 15:56, Jonathan Borden wrote: > [...] > > "Patients with a dominantly inherited disease have a father with a > > dominantly inherited disease, and/or a mother with a dominantly inherited > > disease" > > > > <Class rdf:ID="DominantInheritance"> > > <unionOf> > > <Restriction> > > <onProperty rdf:resource="#mother"/> > > <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" /> > > </Restriction> > > <Restriction> > > <onProperty rdf:resource="#father"/> > > <toClass rdf:resource="#DominantInheritance" /> > > </Restriction> > > </unionOf> > > </Class>] > > > > ... > > OK; that looks like a stumper: it's a defined class, > and it's circular. I doubt Jeremy's rules > provide for the relevant conclusions. I take that back. I tried to make a test case out of this, but it doesn't involve any conclusions about the existence of circular stuff; the existence of the circular stuff is in the premise of the argument. So I don't see a problem. Maybe there is one, though. Can you think of some entialments that you think our language should provide that aren't provided by Jeremy's rules? -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2002 12:04:59 UTC