- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 02:29:42 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...]
> > >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 don't follow. That rule doesn't have an existential in the
> > conclusion, does it?
>
> Yes; []'s are short-hand for existentials; i.e. this
> is another way to write that rule:
>
> { :rule9o1 . ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies
> { ?x a _:ex1.
> _:ex1 owl:oneOf ?L } .
I understand owl:oneOf to be a owl:oneToManyProperty, so
the _:ex1 could be unambiguously represented as the term
[ owl:oneOf ?L ]
otherwise we could have written the term
[ owl:oneOf ?L; label ( ?x ?L ) ]
which would make it unambiguous as well
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 20:30:25 UTC