- From: Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 13:14:18 +0100 (GMT Daylight Time)
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- cc: webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, Jim Hendler wrote: > > To be able to close some of our LC comments, there must be a test in > our test suite that includes both inverse and oneOf. In an earlier > message I outlined a simple one, but perhaps someone in the WG can > come up with a better one. It is my opinion that without such a test > we will have trouble convincing some people that OWL DL is > implementable (cf the comments from Jena and HP). Can we please get > such a test at least proposed?? > thanks > JH How about the following? Ontology( Class(a:NiceCorporation partial restriction(a:employs allValuesFrom a:NiceGuy) restriction(a:employs someValuesFrom oneOf(a:tom a:dick))) Class(a:NiceGuy) ObjectProperty(a:employedBy inverseOf(a:employs)) ObjectProperty(a:employs) Individual(a:dick type(complementOf(a:NiceGuy))) Individual(a:niceCorp type(a:NiceCorporation)) Individual(a:tom type(restriction(a:employedBy allValuesFrom complementOf(a:NiceCorporation)))) ) The interaction of the oneof and the assertion that dick isn't a Nice Guy allows us to conclude that niceCorp must employ tom. But then we know that anything that employs tom cannot be a NiceCorporation (due to the inverse), so we get an inconsistency. It's pretty trivial, but I think you do need both one-of and inverse to be able to state it. Sean -- Sean Bechhofer seanb@cs.man.ac.uk http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~seanb
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2003 08:16:01 UTC