Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 11/30/01

OK, lets try a different example where the non-entailment is even more



Determine whether 

  (type X ?ubc)
  (unionOf ?ubc ?lbc)
  (first ?lbc b) (rest ?lbc ?lc) 
  (first ?lc c) (rest ?lc nil)


  (type X ?uabc)
  (unionOf ?uabc ?labc)
  (first ?labc a) (rest ?labc ?lbc)
  (first ?lbc b) (rest ?lbc ?lc) 
  (first ?lc c) (rest ?lc nil)

NB: DAML+OIL-entailment is not yet fully defined.  Let's just say, for now,
that a DAML+OIL interpretation is an RDFS interpretation with the obvious
extra semantic conditions, taken from the DAML+OIL model theory.


It does not entail.  

There are interpretations that satisfy the first knowledge base where the
denotation of a is not in any list, i.e., the extension of the denotation
of ``first'' does not contain any pairs whose second element is the
denotation of ``a''.  These interpretations do not satisfy the second
knowledge base.


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