- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 02:22:54 +0200
- To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Jim: [...] > Seems to me therefore that the problem may be that we are doing these > as consistency rather than entailment tests -- given that they use > features that we know are hard for DL reaoners, it strikes me as a > place where the rule-based, incomplete reasoners might be able to > show what they could do-- but many of those can prove entailments > rather than inconsistencies -- and, in fact, rereading the Guide I > realize that a more typical query would be something like > "From the current ontology can we conclude that WINE1 goes well > with FOOD1", as opposed to asking "Is the whole wine ontology > consistent" We tried that query which is formulated at http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/09wifo/wifoC.n3 and the :goesWith in there is declared in http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/09wifo/wifoP.n3 which is derived from http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/miscellaneous/example002 (in which we had to correct the xml:base, also in 001). The results of that query can be found at http://eulersharp.sourceforge.net/2003/09wifo/wifoE.n3 A more specific query could be _:W :goesWith f:Pie. and the answer would then be vin:SchlossRothermelTrochenbierenausleseRiesling :goesWith f:Pie. Will think/test further... -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 27 September 2003 20:23:39 UTC