From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 11/07/01
On November 7, Jeff Heflin writes: > Ian, > > Thanks for the ingenious suggestion. However, wouldn't you also have to > express restrictions that the cardinality of bestFriend and spouse are > 1? Otherwise, people with a best friend but no spouse, or vice versa > would be included in the class you defined. Oops - you are right of course. Ian > > Jeff > > Ian Horrocks wrote: > > > > On November 7, Jeff Heflin writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > I recently had someone ask me if they could represent a particular kind > > > of knowledge in DAML+OIL, and I wasn't able to give them a definite > > > response. I was hoping one of our DL gurus could help. I was asked if it > > > was possible to define the class of all people who's best friend is > > > their spouse, where bestFriend and spouse are properties. I think this > > > means they would need a restriction that could restrict two properties > > > to have the same value. I don't believe we can do this in DAML+OIL, but > > > wanted to check. Thanks! > > > > As you rightly suspect, there isn't a general way to restrict two > > properties to have the same value. In cases like this, it may be > > possible to use the property hierarchy to achieve the desired result > > by declaring both bestFriend and spouse to be subProperties of a > > property called, say, bestFriendORspouse, and then asserting the class > > as equivalent to a maxCardinality restriction of 1 on > > bestFriendORspouse. > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > Jeff
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST