- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:43:40 -0500
- To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
At 9:26 PM +0000 12/11/02, Ian Horrocks wrote: >On December 11, Jim Hendler writes: > >[snip] > >> Question - I may be misunderstanding some of the OWL semantics, but >> if I say that something is restricted to be an owl:oneOf (which is in >> Lite), and then only give the list a single element - isn't that the >> same as doing a hasValue? If we can already do that in Lite, why >> adding hasValue be worse? > >If you care to look in the feature synopsis you will find: > >2.2 OWL Synopsis >The expanded summary listing of OWL adds the following: >2.2.1 OWL Class Axioms Synopsis > > * oneOf (enumerated classes) > >I.e., oneOf is *not* in OWL Lite. > >Ian > >[snip] oops, apologies, now I have to work harder - but without oneOf or HasValue we're gonna have a lot of pissed off campers... I still am looking for the demonstration that hasValue pushes us into a more complex class - suspect cardinality=1 would let me state something is unique, and thus have to reason two things are the same - but haven't got the time to flesh this out... -JH -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:43:51 UTC