Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL

• From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
• Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 01:07:21 +0100
• To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
• Cc: "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <OF5362C1CA.91A53682-ON41256B71.0082EAC2@agfa.be>

[...]

> But the whole point is that, using your terminology,
>
>
> log:entails
>    c' owl:oneOf ( r' ) .
>    r' a owl:Restriction .
>    r' owl:onProperty rdf:type .
>    r' hasClassQ c' .
>    r' maxCardinalityQ "0" .
>
> so an empty hypothesis entails a contradiction, which is a paradox.

well, I wonder how an empty hypothesis could entail the graph

  _:c owl:oneOf ( _:r ) .
  _:r a owl:Restriction .
  _:r owl:onProperty rdf:type .
  _:r owl:hasClassQ _:c .
  _:r owl:maxCardinalityQ "0" .

we have tried hard to achieve such a result with
our understanding of owl-theory, but we can only
achieve that after having asserted e.g.

  <pp#d> owl:oneOf ( <pp#s> ) .
  <pp#s> a owl:Restriction .
  <pp#s> owl:onProperty rdf:type .
  <pp#s> owl:hasClassQ <pp#d> .
  <pp#s> owl:maxCardinalityQ "0" .

and that contains indeed a contradiction

--
Jos De Roo

Received on Sunday, 3 March 2002 19:07:59 UTC