Re: on behalf of sandro

From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 10/25/01

>  > >>  Sorry to be dense, but how does one state "there is something colored
>>  >>  red" in DAML+OIL?
>>  >
>>  >The simple answer is that you can't without either naming it (i.e.,
>>  >asserting that some named individual is red) or connecting it to some
>>  >named individual via properties. This "collapsed model property" is
>>  >one of the basic properties of description logics on which their
>>  >decision procedures depend.
>>  Hmm. This seems easy in RDF:
>>  _:xxx hasColor Red .
>>  That would seem to imply that RDF can express something that DAML+OIL
>>  cannot express! Which is fine, I guess, but it doesn't jibe with what
>>  I had (perhaps naively) thought was the intended relationship between
>>  RDF/S and DAML+OIL.
>I would very  much like to see this issue resolved.
>However, it seems to me that cardinality constraints provide us with the
>same (or at least analogous) issues regarding bindings to query
>variables in query results.  I.e., does a query that asks for all the
>parents of Joe (as described in my previous message), to a KB that does
>not name the parents of Joe get back two bindings to constants created
>by the query answering agent to represent the parents of Joe or does it
>get back no bindings plus an indicator that there are exactly two
>answers to the query?

Or should there be no difference between these cases? (I certainly 
wouldn't expect the query-answering system to start giving me 

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST