W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > September 2003

cardinality-007 cardinality-005

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 12:23:20 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200309121223.20394.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

I am looking at full nonentailments

one is:

first:c rdf:type owl:Restriction .
first:c owl:onProperty first:p .
first:c owl:cardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger  .


_:a rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:a owl:onProperty first:p .
_:a owl:maxCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger  .
_:c rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:c owl:onProperty first:p .
_:c owl:minCardinality "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger  .
_:e rdf:first _:c .
_:e rdf:rest rdf:nil .
_:g rdf:first _:a .
_:g rdf:rest _:e .
first:c owl:intersectionOf _:g .

That .looks like an entailment to me.


On 1st May we unapproved cardinality-005
(i.e. the above test as an entailment)

I then obsoleted it, (with editorial discretion, and proposed the 
nonentailment 007)

The rationale was given in

However, the changes Peter made to the semantics reversed this rationale and 
test cardinality-005 appears to be correct, and cardinality-007 is incorrect.

I hence intend to obsolete 007 (the nonentailment) and propose 005 the 

The LC issue was to do with the semantics of intersectionOf which changed from 
if-then to iff.

I will make these changes if I have no adverse comment.

Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 06:23:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:48 UTC