- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 08:02:38 -0400
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: revised version of semantics document Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:49:16 +0200 > [...] > > > > 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 ) . > ==== Where? How? Why? Why should it matter? > 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 Yes, indeed, I would now need this extra KB which seems totally unnatural to me. > 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 Why should anyone care at all about the entailment rules? > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ peter
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 08:02:55 UTC