- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 23:44:32 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, "webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
>>I agree as well.
>>Pat, what kind of notation are you using?
>> [minCardinalityFrom P 1]
>> [maxCardinalityFrom [Complement P] 0]
>> [Hand partOf CardinalityFrom Fingers 5]
>
>I made it up, sorry. I hate description-logic syntax.
>
>>I think that the last one is in N3 like
>> :Hand a owl:Restriction;
>> owl:onProperty :partOf;
>> daml:cardinalityQ 5.
>> daml:hasClassQ :Fingers.
>
>Right, exactly. Typing this stuff makes my knuckles hurt.
My understanding of the English language is not
complete at all, but that one sounds good ;-)
A while ago Geoff Chappell pointed out that
I maybe made some bugs wrt unique names
assumption in the inconsistency detections for
owl:maxCardinality and he was quite right, so we
corrected that in http://www.agfa.com/w3c/owl-rules
and also added stuff for owl:maxCardinalityQ
but it is not a nice simple inference rule
but instead
{:rule20q0.
?R owl:onProperty ?P;
owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
owl:hasClassQ ?A.
?M math:equalTo 0.
?X a ?R;
?P ?Y.
?Y a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.
{:rule20q1.
?R owl:onProperty ?P;
owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
owl:hasClassQ ?A.
?M math:equalTo 1.
?X a ?R;
?P ?Y1, ?Y2.
?Y2 owl:differentFrom ?Y1.
?Y1 a ?A.
?Y2 a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.
{:rule20q2.
?R owl:onProperty ?P;
owl:maxCardinalityQ ?M;
owl:hasClassQ ?A.
?M math:equalTo 2.
?X a ?R;
?P ?Y1, ?Y2, ?Y3.
?Y2 owl:differentFrom ?Y1.
?Y3 owl:differentFrom ?Y1, ?Y2.
?Y1 a ?A.
?Y2 a ?A.
?Y3 a ?A} =>
{?X log:inconsistentWith owl:maxCardinalityQ}.
Does that make sense?
Any idea to make it more abstract?
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 17:45:00 UTC