- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:57:26 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
OK Peter, that's clear then,
one has to use OWL Full then.
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
"Peter F.
Patel-Schneider" To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
<pfps@research.bell cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
-labs.com> Subject: Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics
to support annotations and fix problem with imports
2003-02-12 01:51 AM
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to
support annotations and fix problem with imports
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:31:21 +0100
[...]
> OK
> Then I still wonder about the second testcase:
>
> Does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph
>
> :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
> :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
> :x :y :z. # annotation triple
>
> with the following OWL Lite graph
>
> :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
> :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
> :y rdfs:subPropertyOf :v.
The merge is not an OWL Lite graph so OWL Lite entailment does not apply.
> OWL Lite entail
>
> :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
> :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
> :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
> :x :v :z.
>
>
> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 19:58:10 UTC