Re: SEM: comprehensive entailments without dark triples

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/