From: Pat Hayes (phayes@ai.uwf.edu)
Date: 11/29/01
>From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >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. What should the MT say about it, then? That it refers to George W. Bush? > >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)) > I must be getting old, or something. I really do not follow you. Are you saying that A does NOT entail B?? If we don't have any relationships in the model theory, how will we entail ANYTHING? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST