From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
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
*numbers*.)
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST