- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 21:21:02 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: welty@us.ibm.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...]
> At least one of these test cases is not dependant on the test cases
Jeremy
> proposes. Therefore, I propose the following test case, to be added to
the
> approved list of OWL tests:
>
> DESCRIPTION:
>
> If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty
> then an OWL object has at most one value for prop.
>
> RATIONALE:
>
> This tests an inference that is not dependant upon the previous approved
> tests for owl:FunctionalProperty.
>
> PREMISE
>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
> xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
> <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
> <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object" />
> </rdf:RDF>
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
> xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
> <owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object">
> <rdf:type>
> <owl:Restriction>
> <owl:onProperty>
> <owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
> </owl:onProperty>
> <owl:maxCardinality>1</owl:maxCardinality>
> </owl:Restriction>
> </rdf:type>
> </owl:Thing>
> </rdf:RDF>
besides the missing '>' at the end of the
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/"
I would rather go for for a nonconclusion here
(although I must say that we actually have
(for experimental (*) reasons and started
in april, after the 2nd f2f meeting) that
:object a owl:Object .
:prop a owl:FunctionalProperty .
owl-entails
:object a ( [ a owl:Restriction;
owl:maxCardinality "1";
owl:onProperty :prop ] ) .
in there the list term ( ... ) is like
"the address of" very much like Pat said
and an engine could dereference that address
to obtain the sequence of terms and their
eventual descriptions, but it is decoupled
from the top level graph and it is in a sense
closing stuff)
but for now I would go for incomlete indeed...
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
(*) http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint
$Id: tpoint.n3,v 1.8 2002/04/05 14:09:24 amdus Exp $
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:21:40 UTC