- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 07 Jun 2002 16:56:42 -0500
- To: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg "<www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-06-07 at 16:46, Jos De_Roo wrote:
[...]
> > 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...
Functional terms and existentials buy you the
same power/grief.
For OWL 1.0, I (presently) think we should stop
short of that sort of thing.
>
> > 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
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 17:56:12 UTC