Re: revised version of semantics document

[...]

> > the one that I can go with is
> >
> >   :John a :Student .
> >   :John a :Employee .
> >   :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .
> > OWL-entails
> >   :John a :C .
> >
> > as all models of the premis are also models of the conclusion
> > and no new existentials are introduced in the entailment rules
> > (the lists in the conclusions are identical clones)
>
> Do you have a complete way of transforming from the natural entailment 
to
> this entailment?

well Peter, I don't know what you mean with "natural entailment"
I guess it's the one that you wanted to hold i.e.
   :John a :Student .
   :John a :Employee .
 OWL-entails
   :John owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .

but I still don't understand the question (and it's 3:12 AM here)

what we have is
 {
  <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule9c4> .
  :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee).
   {
    <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i2> .
    :John a :Student.
     {
      <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i2> .
      :John a :Employee.
       {
        <http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule14i1> } |=
      {:John ns:inEachOf ( )}} |=
    {:John ns:inEachOf ( :Employee)}} |=
  {:John ns:inEachOf ( :Student :Employee)}} |=
{:John a :C}.

using
{ :rule9c4 . ?C owl:intersectionOf ?L . ?x :inEachOf ?L } log:implies { ?x 
a ?C } .
{ :rule14i1 } log:implies { ?x :inEachOf ( ) } .
{ :rule14i2 . ?x a ?a . ?x :inEachOf ?b } log:implies { ?x :inEachOf [ 
rdf:first ?a; rdf:rest ?b ] } .

and I think it is quite natural to explicitly give
  :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) .

as a premis, no?

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 21:14:29 UTC