W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: OWL semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 21:37:57 +0200
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF980FABC8.EE501E66-ONC1256C10.006AF009@agfa.be>


> the zeitgeist of RDF. After all, if an RDF reasoner is supposed to
> conclude A subClassOf C, when it sees A foo B, B foo C, and foo
> subpropertyOf subClassOf, why shouldn't an OWL reasoner? [1]

yes, why not


> [1] I suspect that most RDF tools do not handle this inference correctly
> anyway, but that is a different issue

right, that is a different issue
we get (using owl-rules importing rdfs-rules)

  <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules#rule8> .
    <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules#rule6a> .
    :B :foo :C} log:implies
  {:B rdfs:subClassOf :C}.
    <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules#rule6a> .
    :A :foo :B} log:implies
  {:A rdfs:subClassOf :B}} log:implies
{:A rdfs:subClassOf :C}.

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 15:38:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:33 UTC