- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:04 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > [...]
> >
> > > > OWL-entails
> > > >
> > > > :John a ( owl:Restriction _:x owl:onProperty :child owl:hasClass _:x )
.
> >
> > [...]
>
> > the () are indeed regular owl lists
>
> But then :John becomes an instance of the list given above.
> This is not a valid consequence, or, at least, does not appear to me to be
> a valid consequence in any version of OWL/FOWL/DAML+OIL that I am familiar
> with.
>
> Are you indeed deducing that :John is a member of an object that is an
> instance of daml:List? If so, please let me know what sort of logical
> system you have implemented in your rules.
At that time we *had* entailment rules like
{ ?s ?p ?o . ?s a ( owl:Restriction ?R owl:onProperty ?p owl:toClass ?C ) }
log:implies { ?o a ?C } .
{ ?s ?p ?o . ?o a ?C }
log:implies { ?s a ( owl:Restriction ?R owl:onProperty ?p owl:hasClass ?C ) }
.
That worked as such but was meaningless/misleading and is now thrown away.
We now have (as a matter of test) another possible pair of er
{ ?s ?p ?o . ?s a [ owl:restrictionOf ( ?p ?C ) ] } log:implies { ?o a ?C } .
{ ?s ?p ?o . ?o a ?C } log:implies { ?s a [ owl:restrictionOf ( ?p ?C ) ] } .
and for instance on the question wether
:John :child :Bill .
:Bill a :Person .
owl-entails
:John a _:1 .
:John a [ owl:restrictionOf ( :child _:1 ) ] .
we get an positive answer, for instance Euler found
:John a [ owl:restrictionOf ( :child [ owl:oneOf ( :John :Bill ) ] ) ] .
--
Jos
--
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2002 09:40:15 UTC