cardinality-007 cardinality-005

I am looking at full nonentailments

one is:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/proposedByFunction#cardinality-007

i.e.
[[
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.

Digging

On 1st May we unapproved cardinality-005
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-test-20030331/#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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2003Apr/0060.html

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 
entailment.

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.

Jeremy

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