- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:42:11 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[before you go on holiday... have a good holiday!] > > On July 26, Jeremy Carroll writes: > > I am also concerned about tests in the style of FunctionalProperty > > test 003. Here, we are asked to conclude that a property is > > InverseFunctional given that its inverse is functional. This is a > > higher order inference that is a consequence of the semantics of OWL, > > but cannot be proved within OWL. I.e., OWL does not state anything > > like: > > > > forall P,Q . FunctionalProperty(P) ^ inverse(P,Q) -> InverseFunctionalProperty(Q) > > > > I would *NOT* expect an OWL reasoner to find this inference. > > > > > > I could support this as a non-entailment test. me too (although I currently support the entailment) [...] -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 11:43:03 UTC