- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 11:37:50 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
Subject: Re: TEST, SEM: test cases for dark triples
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 14:45:04 +0200
[...]
> 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 ) ] } .
Well these are a rather strange pair of inference rules. They certainly
are not correct for any of the DAML+OIL constructs, nor for any OWL
construct that I have seen proposed.
Could you please give me an informal description of what owl:restrictionOf
is supposed to mean?
> [...]
peter
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 11:39:33 UTC