- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:49:16 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > > and I think it is quite natural to explicitly give > > :C owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . > > > > as a premis, no? > > Not at all. Why should I have to put this in the premise if I don't feel > like it? Why should it matter? OK, fine if you don't like that, you just write ==== peterP1 @prefix : <university#> . :John a :Student . :John a :Employee . ==== and jon's agents somewhere came accross (remark the unnamed class _:U) ==== jonP1 @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix : <university#> . _:U owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . ==== then you could still OWL-entail ==== peterC1 @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix : <university#> . :John a _:X . _:X owl:intersectionOf ( :Student :Employee ) . ==== but you would indeed need jonP1 it matters because of all models of the premis are also models of the conclusion and no new existentials are introduced in the entailment rules -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 07:50:02 UTC