- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:34:54 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> > :large eg:inconsistentWith owl:oneOf . > > This doesn't follow in any proposal, as eg:inconsistentWith is not defined > in any of the proposals. In any case, what is the intended meaning of > eg:inconsistentWith here? well I think that Jeremy has a maybe much better proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jul/0101.html point 4.3 my main concern is that I would like to know WHY some stuff is inconsistent (and I believe in a proof form of that giving evidence via deduction rules but I agree that this is kind of out of scope here) and I think that SEM must specify that > > So I thought (and tried sucessfully out with > > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules) > > why not having that > > > > :p owl:extension ( ( :s1 :o1 ) ( :s2 :o2 ) ) . > > :q owl:extension ( ( :s2 :o2 ) ( :s1 :o1 ) ) . > > :r owl:extension ( ( :s1 :o1 ) ) . > > :s3 :p :o3 . > > > > owl-entails > > > > :s1 :p :o1 . > > :q owl:samePropertyAs :p . > > :r rdfs:subPropertyOf :q . > > ( :s3 :o3 ) eg:inconsistentWith owl:extension . > > Well owl:extension is not in any of the proposals so how can this follow? well of course there isn't such an owlproposed:extension but then there shouldn't be a owl:oneOf either... unless there is something that I miss (it was a beg for help Peter) > > as ako explicitly stating the definitive extension > > of a property and check it's consistencies as well > > (just like for classes) -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 17 July 2002 08:35:30 UTC