- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 00:05:17 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

> > [...] > > > > > 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 ... thanks > 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. good point, I've added { ?L owl:item ?x } log:implies { ?x a [ owl:oneOf ?L ] } . so now the-empty-graph log:entails :John a [ owl:oneOf ( :Frans :John :Mary ) ] . but that still doesn't give us an empty hypothesis to entail _:1 owl:oneOf ( _:2 ) . I will think further... > Are you claiming > that it is complete? No, and there's no plan to become complete ;-) > > 2. if that can indeed be entailed, > > could you please SHOW THE PROOF??? > > Proof in what system? OK, I was just trying to get *some* evidence > I have indicated that this would be a semantic > consequence in a model theoretic semantics that supports inferences that I > claim are desirable. fair enough, I just haven't seen/understood it > I have not written down a proof theory that is > sound and complete for this model theory. > > > -- > > Jos De Roo > > peter -- Jos

Received on Monday, 4 March 2002 18:05:54 UTC