- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 22:08:05 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
> [...] > > > 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? the ?x is shorthand "for all x elements of the domain of discourse" ?s ?p ?o . ?s a [ owl:restrictionOf ( ?p ?C ) ] in the premise is actually ?s ?p ?o . ?s a ?x . ?x owl:restrictionOf ( ?p ?C ) (btw the . is shorthand for logical conjunction) owl:restrictionOf is a rdf:Property whose rdfs:domain is owl:Class and whose rdfs:range is owl:Seq i.e. a sequence of a rdfs:Property followed by an owl:Class also owl:restrictionOf is an owl:UnambiguousProperty so we don't need a Skolem function in the second consequent an example could be something like :Person rdfs:subClassOf [ owl:restrictedBy ( :hasParent :Person ) ] . which is btw also an example of :Person circularity -- Jos
Received on Saturday, 27 April 2002 16:10:31 UTC