- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:23:01 -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: Re: TEST: inconsistency testcases for maxCardinality feature Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:19:29 +0200 > > [...was expecting worse] > > >> 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. > > OK, would it be OK to add that :ob1, :ob2 and :ob3 are pairwise > owl:differentFrom each other? This should work, except that it is owl:differentIndividualFrom. You also need to say that :prop is an owl:ObjectProperty. > is there another way? In the abstract syntax, you could just say DifferentIndividuals(:ob1 :ob2 :ob3) [...] > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ peter
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:23:13 UTC