- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:08:58 +0100
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>> suppose you have a similar case
>> the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4
>> the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6
>> i is in a restriction on property p
>> with mincardinality of 2
>>
>> is it then the case that
>> i p 3
>> i p 4
>
>
>Yes that is correct.
>
>>
>> I wouldn't think so as I (still) think
>> that ranges can come in via RDF merges
>> adding e.g.
>> the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8
>>
>> (I think I can't live with the idea of
>> *closed* ranges...)
>>
>
>The ranges aren't closed the related case ls:
>
>> the range of p is one of 1,2,3,4
>> the range of p is one of 3,4,5,6
>> the range of p is one of 2,4,6,8
>> i is in a restriction on property p
>> with mincardinality of 2
>
>This is inconsistent and thus it entails
>
>> i p 3
>> i p 4
>
>(but it is less interesting this time round!).
that's a nice reasoning hmm...
so you would make it impossible to further make
the range of a property sharper (doing so would
make the kb inconsistent)
I believe that this is not following from AS&S
at least I can't conclude it from such piece as
if E is rdfs:range
then for x element of IOP, y element of IOC U IDC
<x,y> element of EXTi(Si(E)) iff
<w,z> element of EXTi(x) -> z element of CEXTi(y)
which we interpret as
{?x rdfs:range ?y. ?w ?x ?z} => {?z rdf:type ?y}.
{?z rdfs:subClassOf ?y. ?x rdfs:range ?z} => {?x rdfs:range ?y}.
so I still think that we can't call the proposed testcase
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/oneOf/Manifest004#test a
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/testOntology#PositiveEntailmentTest
-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 1 February 2003 08:15:49 UTC