- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 01:11:05 +0200
- To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[...]
>Is there a reason we don't move oneOf to Full then? While i like
>having same vocabulary in DL and Full, my group has lots of tools
>that do nice things with oneOf - but generally not reasoning, so
>we're happy to do it in Full. If no one has implemented a reasoner
>which can do oneOf, the existance of an algorithm doesn't help -- we
we actually use owl:oneOf in 6 owl-rules (intended for reasoning)
and in 4 facts (which could be used by other rules)
and owl:hasValue in 4 owl-rules and 2 facts
we also use owl:oneOf together with owl:inversOf for example
:s :p :o.
:o owl:oneOf (:a :b :c :d).
:p owl:inverseOf :q.
{?S :q ?O. ?X a ?S} => {?X a :T}.
entails
:d a :T.
>need to point to two implementations of the algorithm that work in
>the real world (for example, an algorithm for optimal chess is
>trivial to design, but it takes a billion years or more to run given
>infinite memory - in practice, building a good chess player proved to
>be very difficult).
>
>I am tempted to raise an issue on this, but worried it would get
>contentious - but the WG never actually discussed this, we included
>oneOf because DAML did. I'd like to hear if people think this needs
>opening.
I have no clear opinion Jim
> - JH
>p.s. I am also assuming when we say "oneOf" we also include
>"hasValue" - is that correct?
well in a sense I don't see the relation...
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 19:11:21 UTC