- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 23:34:39 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...]
> Also: I don't see anything in your rules that
> says samePropertyAs is symmetric.
right
we now have in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules
$Id: owl-rules.n3,v 1.50 2002/07/26 21:03:08 amdus Exp $
owl:samePropertyAs owl:inverseOf owl:samePropertyAs .
as well as
owl:complementOf owl:inverseOf owl:complementOf .
owl:differentFrom owl:inverseOf owl:differentFrom .
owl:disjointWith owl:inverseOf owl:disjointWith .
owl:equivalentTo owl:inverseOf owl:equivalentTo .
owl:sameClassAs owl:inverseOf owl:sameClassAs .
but we wonder about
owl:inverseOf owl:inverseOf owl:inverseOf .
???
also w.r.t. to transitivity of properties, we have
owl:equivalentTo a owl:TransitiveProperty .
owl:sameClassAs a owl:TransitiveProperty .
owl:samePropertyAs a owl:TransitiveProperty .
on the other hand we still have explicit symmetricity in
{ :rule4p1 . ?p owl:samePropertyAs ?r . ?s ?p ?o } log:implies { ?s ?r ?o
} .
{ :rule4p2 . ?p owl:samePropertyAs ?r . ?s ?r ?o } log:implies { ?s ?p ?o
} .
and in
{ :rule5c1 . ?x owl:sameClassAs ?y . ?s a ?x } log:implies { ?s a ?y } .
{ :rule5c2 . ?x owl:sameClassAs ?y . ?s a ?y } log:implies { ?s a ?x } .
but not for reflexivity and transitivity
(because log:implies takes care of that)
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 17:35:18 UTC