Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 11/29/01


From: Pat Hayes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 19:44:07 -0600

> >
> >Untouchable - should not make it into the model theory
> 
> Why? (Because they use constructions defined by rdf:parseType??)
> 
> >
> >	Ontology versionInfo imports
> >
> >	unionOf intersectionOf disjointUnionOf oneOf
> >	complementOf
> >
> >	onProperty toClass hasValue
> >	hasClass minCardinality maxCardinality cardinality
> >	hasClassQ minCardinalityQ maxCardinalityQ cardinalityQ
> >
> >	equivalentTo sameClassAs samePropertyAs sameIndividualAs
> >	disjointWith differentIndividualFrom inverseOf
> 
> Pat

To be more precise, perhaps.

The above constructs are DAML+OIL syntax and should not generate
relationships in the model theory.  For example (using a much nicer syntax)

	(unionOf a (intersectionOf b c))

should not result in a unionOf relationship in the model theory.

Why?  Well, if it did then how could you get an entailment between

	A = (unionOf a (intersectionOf b c))

and

	B = (intersectionOf (unionOf a b) (unionOf b c))


peter


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