Re: TEST: datatypes and cardinality

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 06:44:43 -0500 (EST)
• To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030228.064443.126156014.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: TEST: datatypes and cardinality
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:30:08 +0100

> 
> 
> (Mainly for Ian)
> At the telecon last night we suggested that finite datatypes were somehow 
> harder than infinite ones.
> I tried building a test case, but it ended up in OWL Full - I filed it under 
> issue 5.1
> http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#proposedIssue-I5.1-Uniform-treatment-of-literal-data-values
> 
> To get the finiteness of the datatype to interact with the domain of discourse 
> I seemed to require an InverseFunctional DatatypeProperty.
> 
> DatatypeProperty( p, range(xsd:byte), InverseFunctional )
> ObjectProperty( q, inverse(invQ) )
> Individual( spy, type( restriction( invQ, cardinality=127 ) ) )
> EquivalentClasses(
>    Restriction( p, someValuesFrom(xsd:unsignedInt) )
>    Restriction( p, hasValue( spy ) )
> )
> 
> (This is consistent, changing the 127 to 128 is not).
> 
> Can anyone show me how to get a similar affect in OWL DL?
> (I might need to move this test into the extra credit section)
> 
> Jeremy
> 

DatatypeProperty( p range(xsd:byte) )

Class( bad cardinality(p 257 ) )

Inidividual( john type(bad) )

is a contradiction.

 

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 06:44:52 UTC