- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 10:04:18 -0400
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[Note: I will be using Pat's abbreviations for lists and restrictions throughout. I have also included owl:Thing and owl ] Pat's claim just before Section 2.3 is incorrect. The claim is that OWL entailment, as defined in my semantics document http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics.html is the same as entailment over OWL structure interpretations (which I will call OWL/RDF structure entailment. This is not correct, for several reasons. First, Class(C) OWL entails SubClassOf(sub=C super=unionOf(C C)) but C rdf:type owl:Class . does not OWL structure entail C rdfs:subClassOf _:u . _:u owl:unionOf [C C] . because of the definition of rdfs:subClassOf in the RDFS model theory. Second, ObjectProperty(foo Symmetric) SubClassOf(sub=owl:Thing super=restriction(foo value=a)) Individual(a type=A) Individual(b type=B) DifferentIndividuals(a b) DisjointClasses(A B) Class(C complete restriction(oof minCardinality(3))) does not OWL entail Individual(a type=C) but the translation into RDF does produce an OWL/RDF structural entailment, because there are three different classes (A, B, and rdfs:Resource) in the domain of discourse and each of them is related to a via foo. peter
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 10:04:28 UTC