- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 20:46:41 -0400
- To: jonathan@openhealth.org
- Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
cyFrom: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> Subject: Re: a problem with comprehensive entailments Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 08:29:09 -0400 > Jos, > > Is there a way that you can place a finite boundary on the number of times > this back and forth will occur, that is, is there a way, using comprehensive > entailments, that you will be absolutely certain that the entailments are > actually comprehensive? For example, suppose we decide to go with this > approach, and then just after CR, for example, someone demonstrates yet > another example of a paradox for which no easy rule can be developed. What > then? > > Jonathan Along the same lines, here are some interesting consequences of an ontology language with reasonable comprehension principles. These are consequences of the empty KB: _:0 owl:onProperty rdf:type . _:0 owl:minCardinality 0 . _:0 rdf:type _:0 . _:1 owl:onProperty rdf:type . _:1 owl:minCardinality 1 . _:1 rdf:type _:1 . Question: What is the minimum n such that _:n owl:onProperty rdf:type . _:n owl:minCardinality n . _:n rdf:type _:n . is not a consequence of the empty KB, or is the above a consequence of the empty KB for all finite n? peter
Received on Sunday, 5 May 2002 20:48:17 UTC