- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 00:17:25 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: "\"\"Peter F. Patel-Schneider\" <pfps\"" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Jonathan Borden <jonathan" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
>>I'm not sure what you mean by ``damage''. >> >>One way to go would be to >>1/ ask for ``unasserted'' stuff in RDF >>2/ place restrictions on the form of the DAML+OIL constructs >>This *might* result in a viable solution, depending on how much of a change >>is made to RDF. The change to DAML+OIL here would be >>1/ the syntax >>2/ the model theory > >I am confident that this will be a viable solution. Existing code >does this, in effect, and seems to work reliably, and there is a >clear strategy for providing a coherent semantics. I do not even >think that it will require significant changes to DAML+OIL; the only >extra requirement is that the daml:list triples be unasserted in RDF. right, fully agreed as an aside, I have some trouble that :John a :Person . :John a :Student . would entail :John a [ owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ] . but no trouble that it would entail :John a ( owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ) . using ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IF | THEN ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?x a ?a | ?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ( ?a ) ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ?x a ?a | ?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ( ?a / ?b ) ) ?x a ( owl:intersectionOf ?b ) | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ where the ( :a / :b ) is shorthand for [ owl:first :a; owl:rest :b ] but maybe I haven't thought hard enough??? -- Jos
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 20:43:16 UTC