- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 14:34:43 -0500
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: Re: more on a same-syntax extension from RDF(S) to OWL Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 20:01:53 +0100 > > [...] > > > So, to be more precise it should have been > > > > > > log:entails > > _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) . > > _:2 a owl:Restriction . > > _:2 owl:onProperty rdf:type . > > _:2 hasClassQ _:1 . > ^owl: > > _:2 maxCardinalityQ "0" . > ^owl: > > OK Peter, I've re-re-re-ad your mail and think > I understand it better now > BUT please try to help us with the following: > 1. using such entailment rules as in > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 > (this is just further play/elaboration of the > RDFS MT entailment rules as in > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/rdfs-rules.n3) > we can never derive a ... owl:oneOf ... statement > (there is just no fact, nor rule consequence > that matches it, so in fact we already fail there) > so how could it ever be satisfied??? I'm not sure why you are asking the question, but nevertheless ... I agree that http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 does not sanction any oneOf consequences. Therefore, you will not get John a person . to imply John a [ owl:oneOf ( John ) ]. from http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3. All this says, however, is that there are desirable inferences that http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 does not sanction, i.e., http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules.n3 is incomplete. Are you claiming that it is complete? > 2. if that can indeed be entailed, > could you please SHOW THE PROOF??? Proof in what system? I have indicated that this would be a semantic consequence in a model theoretic semantics that supports inferences that I claim are desirable. I have not written down a proof theory that is sound and complete for this model theory. > -- > Jos De Roo peter

Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 14:35:52 UTC