- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 22:02:57 +0200
- To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
When I was sending this message to Peter, I forgot to
cc the group and so we discussed a bit offline...
The conclusion is that we have an implementation
specific issue
> we normally assert P and try to prove C
> using resolution based backchaining.
> In the implementation we do *not* assert ~C.
> However in the case C contains comprehension
> conditions we *do* assert those (as they
> are the case). Of course, we could assert
> contradictory matter that way, so that's why I
> said "so I guess one has to check for those".
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jos De_Roo
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
2003-06-23 cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
02:14 AM Subject: SEM: AS&S Comprehension conditions (principles)
Peter,
In AS&S Comprehension conditions (principles)
how can one be sure that
_:x owl:onProperty :p.
_:x owl:maxCardinality 1.
_:x owl:onProperty :p.
_:x owl:minCardinality 5.
is not entailed from the empty KB?
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
PS using AS&S Comprehension conditions (principles)
we now have implementation experience that
:X a _:x. _:x owl:oneOf (:a :b :c).
:Y a _:y. _:y owl:intersectionOf (:A :B :C :D).
:Z a _:z. _:z owl:unionOf (:M :N :O).
entails
:X a _:u. _:u owl:oneOf (:d :c :b :a).
:Y a _:v. _:v owl:intersectionOf (:C :B :A).
:Z a _:w. _:w owl:unionOf (:P :O :N :M).
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 16:03:19 UTC