- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:55:43 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> >> >>How about this: >> >>eg:c rdf:type owl:Class . >>eg:d rdf:type owl:Class . >>eg:ap rdf:type AnnotationProperty . >>owl:Thing owl:oneOf rdf:nil . >> >>entails >> >>eg:c eg:ap eg:d . >> >> >>==== >> >>I think this holds in OWL Full but not in OWL DL, yet it is within >>the syntactic subset. > > > >As Mehrdad points out this is actually an OWL DL entailment, >since owl:Thing is non-empty. > >Updated problem case is: > >eg:p rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . >eg:q rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . >owl:Thing owl:oneOf _:b . > _:b rdf:first eg:i . > _:b rdf:rest rdf:nil. > eg:i rdf:type owl:Thing. >eg:i eg:p eg:i . > > entails > >eg:i eg:q eg:i . > >True in OWL full, since the universe has only one element thus eg:q >and eg:p are the same property. Well, but the universe also contains all the RDFS properties and classes and rdf:nil and all literal values, for example. So things are a lot weirder than this example might suggest, since it would also follow that for example: rdf:type owl:sameAs owl:Thing . (choose your favorite zany identity) and God alone knows what the consequences of all these would be. Certainly this would be inconsistent in any datatyped interpretation, eg consider xsd:string owl:sameAs xsd:integer . Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 13:55:50 UTC