- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Jun 2002 01:17:52 -0500
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 2002-06-06 at 17:31, Jos De_Roo wrote: > > [...] > > > 3d) Proposal to close issue 2.4 - Enumerated Classes (daml:oneOf) > > issue: [...] > > Dan will reconsider a test case posted by Jos. > > that is actually the one in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0276.html > "TEST: sameClassAs testcase" [1][2][3] i.e. from nothing, conclude: [ owl:oneOf ( :a :a :b ) ] owl:sameClassAs [ owl:oneOf ( :b :a :a ) ] . Well, my position on 5.10-DAML+OIL-semantics-is-too-weak http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002May/0235.html is that OWL shouldn't entail the existence of any classes from an empty premise. i.e. there shouldn't be any axioms with existentials in the conclusions. (there's a name for that fragment of FOL, no? is that horn clauses? I often forget). So I'm currently against rules such as: { :rule9o1 . ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } . from http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules I worked out a similar test: premise: :x owl:oneOf ( :a :a :b ). :y owl:oneOf ( :b :a :a ). conclusion: :x owl:sameClassAs :y. and I'm satisfied OWL should give us that much. (I haven't gotten as far as checking the test in; I had to kludge around a few problems to get it working.) -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 02:17:23 UTC