Re: querying DAML+OIL syntax

From: Dan Connolly ([email protected])
Date: 11/30/01 

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> Your claimed entailment is not valid.

We evidently miscommunicated;
I meant to claim a DAML+OIL entailment, not a RDFS entailment.

> peter
> 
> Problem:
> 
> Determine whether
> 
>   (type X ?uaibc)
>   (unionOf ?uaibc ?laibc)
>   (first ?laibc a) (rest ?laibc ?libc)
>   (first ?libc ?ibc) (rest ?libc nil)
>   (intersectionOf ?ibc ?lbc)
>   (first ?lbc b) (rest ?lbc ?lc) (first ?lc c) (rest ?lc nil)
> 
> RDFS-entails
> 
>   (type X ?iuabubc)
>   (intersectionOf ?iuabubc ?luabubc)
>   (first ?luabubc ?uab) (rest ?luabubc ?lubc)
>   (first ?lubc ?ubc) (rest ?lubc nil)
>   (unionOf ?uab ?lab)
>   (first ?lab a) (rest ?lab ?lb) (first ?lb b) (rest ?lb nil)
>   (unionOf ?ubc ?lbc)
>   (first ?lbc b) (rest ?lbc ?lc) (first ?lc c) (rest ?lc nil)

of course not; you need the DAML+OIL constraints on models.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

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