Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval

• From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
• Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 02:06:04 +0200
• To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-ID: <OFB384C128.201C4439-ONC1256C2A.007EFE43@agfa.be>

[...]

> > > 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>
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > I would rather go for for a nonconclusion here
>
> Why would you not want this to follow?

well, as I tried and explained, I had a conclusion like

<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
         xmlns:owl="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#">
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object">
    <rdf:type rdf:parseType="Collection">
      <rdf:Description>
        <rdf:type 
rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#Restriction"/>
        <owl:maxCardinality>1</owl:maxCardinality>
        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="http://www.example.org/foo#prop"/>
      </rdf:Description>
    </rdf:type>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

but that is quite different than yours
and I'm indeed not convinced about having
existentials in inference rule conclusions
(except for closed lists denoting sequences)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 20:06:40 UTC