- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 07:21:09 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> Subject: Layering bug? Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:03:32 +0300 > 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. Correct. > OWL Full proof. > > owl:Thing equals rdfs:Resource. > rdfs:Resource is not empty, > thus there are no interpretations satisfying the premises. > > Jeremy However, this does not violate any of the claims in S&AS, as the relevant theorem is that if an entailment holds in OWL DL then it holds in OWL Full, not vice versa. I will change the note in Appendix A to <p><strong>Note:</strong> The only if direction <span class="change"> is not true. </span> </p> peter
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 07:21:21 UTC