- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 19:31:20 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Hadn't read that before my question in the telecon; sorry
it's now clear if we obsolete Ontology-002
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Jeremy Carroll
<jjc@hplb.hpl.hp. To: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER@AGFA
com> cc: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon
2003-10-02 05:44
PM
That test case is precisely the one we are trying to change.
After the last decision in this space I cam up with test case
Ontology-002 nd Ontology-003 which are the same except one is positive and
one is negative, and one is Full and the other DL.
To respect semantic layering one of them needs to change - it does not
matter which.
Jeremy
Jos De_Roo wrote:
>
> Peter:
>
>>From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
>>Subject: Re: Agenda/Logistics, Oct 2 telecon
>>Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:07:50 +0300
>>
>>
>>>On
>>>C/ Semantic layering bug
>>>
>>>again
>>>
>>>I am beginning to understand ...
>>>
>>>with this suggestion we would have
>>>
>>>*empty*
>>>
>>>does not entail
>>>
>>>_:b rdf:type owl:Ontology
>>>
>>>in both DL and Full?
>>>
>>Yes.
>>
>
> Then how's the reasoning for testcase Ontology-002 [2]?
> i.e.
>
> {
> :Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car owl:equivalentClass first:Automobile .
> :car rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :car rdf:type first:Car .
> :auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :auto rdf:type first:Automobile .
> }
>
> OWL Lite entails
>
> {
> :Automobile rdf:type owl:Class .
> :Car rdf:type owl:Class .
> :car rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :car rdf:type :Automobile .
> :auto rdf:type owl:Thing .
> :auto rdf:type first:Car .
> _:b rdf:type owl:Ontology .
> }
>
>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/Ontology/Manifest002
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 13:32:58 UTC