- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:46:03 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "www-webont-wg <www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> > [...]
> >
> > > 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).
All I remember for the moment is "Clause Normal Form"
and indeed no existentials in the conclusions
but functional terms could be there I think...
> 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
This specific rule is not needed for above testcase
(and also not for your similar test)
I will further think about that, for sure.
> 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 think so, and we had to update for that one
> (I haven't gotten as far as checking the test in;
> I had to kludge around a few problems to get it working.)
(me too)
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 17:46:43 UTC