- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 02:10:41 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
I did a test with just adding
rdfs:Class rdf:type _:iii.
_:iii owl:intersectionOf _:lll.
_:lll rdf:first rdfs:Class.
_:lll rdf:rest rdf:nil.
to our owl-comprension-rules premises
(but in this case we don't need rules
with skolem ft's in their conclusions)
and all test cases are then still OK.
--
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: Minutes of Web Ontology Working Group teleconference of
Sent by: June 5, 2003
www-webont-wg-reque
st@w3.org
2003-06-06 01:25 AM
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: Minutes of Web Ontology Working Group teleconference of June
5, 2003
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 23:58:29 +0200
[...]
> > 17:31:28 <pfps> Peter PS - if owl:Class is not the same
> > as rdfs:Class - then in OWL Full it does
> > not follow that rdfs:Class belongs
> > to the owl:intersectionOf [rdfs:Class]
>
> I can't see why;
> haven't found a problem proving that
>
> ex:I owl:intersectionOf _:l.
> _:l rdf:first rdfs:Class.
> _:l rdf:rest rdf:nil.
>
> entails
>
> rdfs:Class a ex:I.
>
> (that is assuming such facts as
> owl:Class rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Class.
> owl:Thing rdfs:subClassOf rdfs:Resource.
> owl:differentFrom rdfs:domain rdfs:Resource.
> owl:differentFrom rdfs:range rdfs:Resource.
> owl:intersectionOf rdfs:domain rdfs:Class.
> owl:intersectionOf rdfs:range rdf:List.
> ...)
This is not the inference I said did not follow. I said that the empty
knowledge base does not entail
rdfs:Class rdf:type _:i .
_:i owl:intersectionOf _:l .
_:l rdf:first rdfs:Class .
_:l rdf:rest rdf:nil .
if owl:Class is not a superset of rdfs:Class.
This is very different from your example.
peter
Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 20:10:52 UTC