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

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