- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:59:30 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 16:43:14 +0200 > > I'm feeling weak when it comes to cardinalities but not too weak > to risk 2 inconsistency testcases for the maxCardinality feature > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > if > :sb1 :prop :ob1 . > :sb1 :prop :ob2 . > :sb1 :prop :ob3 . > and > :sb1 a [ a owl:Restriction; > owl:onProperty :prop; > owl:maxCardinality "2" ] . > then > this is inconsistent > > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent001.rdf No, this is consistent. Remember, there is no unique names assumption. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > if > :sb1 :prop :ob1 . > :sb1 :prop :ob2 . > :sb1 :otherprop :ob3 . > and > :sb1 a [ a owl:Restriction; > owl:onProperty :prop; > owl:maxCardinality "2" ] . > :otherprop rdfs:subPropertyOf :prop . > > then > this is inconsistent > > -- http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/inconsistent002.rdf Similarly, also consistent. > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Further, neither of the above is RDF. In proposing a test, I think that the actual test needs to be given out. peter PS: I get an error when accessing the http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/maxCardinality/ directory. Is this the desired behaviour?
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 10:59:41 UTC