- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:32:48 -0500 (EST)
- To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com> Subject: Re: owl:complementOf in OWL Full Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:31:23 +0100 > > >> While trying to run Sean's tests I have been falling > >> in deep trouble with owl:complementOf in OWL Full. > >> I really can't make sense of it in OWL Full... > >> What does it mean in OWL Full??? > >> > >> -- , > >> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ > > > >The same as it means in the other dialects. The semantic conditions for > >owl:complementOf don't change - it is always the complement relative to > the > >class extension of owl:Thing. > > > >In OWL Full, the class extension of owl:Thing is the entire RDF domain, so > >complements can be larger than they can be OWL DL. > > So, that would then mean that e.g. the CEXT of > owl:complementOf e.g. class owl:oneOf (:a :b) > would contain itself, yes? It means that _:c owl:complementOf _:o . _:o owl:oneOf _:l1 . _:l1 rdf:first :a . _:l1 rdf:rest _:l2 . _:l2 rdf:first _:b . _:l2 rdf:rest rdf:nil . entails (in OWL Full) _:c rdf:type _:c . > would it contain the russell class? There are no interpretations of the russell class, so I don't see how this state of affairs could possibly arise. > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ peter
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 07:32:58 UTC