- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:08:21 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: "jos.deroo.jd" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "jonathan" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "www-webont-wg" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> The range of rdf:type is rdfs:Class, so either > > :John a ( owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ) . > > is a contradiction (if lists and classes are disjoint), or > > ( owl:intersectionOf ( :Person :Student ) ) a rdfs:Class . > > which just gets us back to the first entailment. > > So I don't think that your distinction is defensible. > > > Either you believe that these extra classes should exist or you believe > that they shouldn't. About the only viable intermediate point would be to > have another category that would include restrictions and boolean class > combinations and have these exist but not have other kinds of classes > exist. I see and guess that that is what was meant with owl:Class and owl:List owl:Class a rdfs:Class . owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class . #@ so we have MT rdfs9 entailment owl:List a rdfs:Class . owl:List rdfs:subClassOf owl:Class . #@@ so contradiction is ruled out owl:intersectionOf a rdf:Property . owl:intersectionOf rdfs:domain owl:List .#@@@ that is a bit more restricted owl:intersectionOf rdfs:range owl:List . I think the distinction is meaningful if we have derived aaa a ( intersectionOf (bbb) ) we have only derived that *one* triple and *not* the two triples aaa a _:x . _:x intersectionOf (bbb) . and that is quite different from a truth preservation perspective, no? -- Jos
Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 11:09:05 UTC