FOL interpretation possible for 'A subclassOf r some B' ?
Opened this issue · 3 comments
From steschu@gmail.com on March 12, 2013 18:41:05
Given the independent continuants A and B, I still think that one can axiomatically define that the following two expressions should have the same interpretation:
- OWL-DL
A subclassOf r² some B - FOL
(forall (?a ?t)
(implies (instance-of ?a A ?t))
(exists (?b)
(and (instance-of ?b B ?t) (r³ ?a ?b ?t))))
Note the difference between r² (OWL object property) and r³ (ternary relation), which are NOT the same.
r² would have no straightforward interpretation in an OWL ABox
See also formula (9) - (11) in the Grewe paper
Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/bfo/issues/detail?id=159
From cmung...@gmail.com on March 12, 2013 16:19:21
Can you provide a profile of OWL2-DL that it is possible to translate in this way?
Something similar to what Fabian did: http://common-logic.1085828.n5.nabble.com/OWL-gt-CL-td2151.html But with additional translations for ternary relations for some class axioms.
Example:
( r2 some A) DisjointWith ( r2 some B)
yields:
(forall (?a ?b ?x ?y ?t)
(if (and (instance-of ?a A ?t)
(instance-of ?b B ?t)
( r3 ?x ?a ?t)
( r3 ?y ?b ?t)
(not (= ?x ?y)))))
[not checked]
via some intermediate translations.
If we can find a profile (preferably closely corresponding to profiles commonly used) then I think we have made progress. Perhaps then we could simply weaken principles #1 from "A clear reading of the OWL version in terms of BFO reference" to "A clear reading of the Foo subset of the OWL version in terms of BFO reference".
From alanruttenberg@gmail.com on March 12, 2013 17:25:34
Hey Chris,
Went to the referenced thread (thanks). But Fabian's translation is cited to be at http://userpages.umbc.edu/~fneuhaus/OWLToCL and that's 404 now. Do you have a copy?
From cmung...@gmail.com on March 12, 2013 17:49:41
No, I asked him though