ISSUE-123: EDITORIAL: Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full [editorial]

QCR in OWL-R-Full

EDITORIAL: Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full [editorial]

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Ivan Herman

Opened on:

2008-05-03

Description:

The current (2008-05-02) OWL-R Full rule set has some rules for handling a minimal version of cardinality constraints. Similar level of support for QCR-s is currently missing; for symmetry the following two rules could be added to the rule set:

T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "0"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p)
T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c)
T(?u, ?p, ?y)
T(?u, rdf:type, ?x)
T(?y, rdf:type, ?c)

=>

false

-------------------------------------------------------------------

T(?x, owl2:maxQualifiedCardinality, "1"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
T(?x, owl:onProperty, ?p)
T(?x, owl2:onClass, ?c)
T(?u, ?p, ?y1)
T(?u, ?p, ?y2)
T(?u, rdf:type, ?x)
T(?y1, rdf:type, ?c)
T(?y2, rdf:type, ?c)

=>

T(?y1, owl:sameAs, ?y2)

I am not sure whether this is possible to add to OWL-R DL, though, without distorting the equivalence theorem between OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full

Related Actions Items:

No related actions

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-123 (QCR in OWL-R-Full): Should we add QCR-s into the rule set of OWL-R-Full (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-05-03)

Related notes:

Display change log