Actually, I believe by virtue of being of the SHOIN family of Description
Logics [1] that OWL-DL & RDFS can express this through role hierachies
and transivite roles (both of which are part of [2] SHOIN: S - Role
transitivity, H - Role hierarchy)
[1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/Publications/download/2003/HoPH03a.pdf
[2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~ezolin/logic/complexity.html
I.e., instead of
:worksFor :transitiveOver :consistsOf.
you would have
:consistsOf rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty
:worksFor rdfs:subPropertyOf :consistsOf
Which would result in the same conclusions via a reasoner
following the axiomatic semantics of owl:TransitiveProperty and
rdfs:subPropertyOf (in N3):
{?P a owl:TransitiveProperty. ?X ?P ?O. ?S ?P ?X} => {?S ?P ?O}.
{?P rdfs:subPropertyOf ?R. ?S ?P ?O} => {?S ?R ?O}.
Chimezie Ogbuji
Lead Systems Analyst
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue/ W26
Cleveland, Ohio 44195
Office: (216)444-8593
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006, Internet Business Logic wrote:
Larry --
On the other hand... There are really simple problems that cannot be computed
in *any* version of OWL.
I believe that "transitive over" [1] is one such.
HTH, -- Adrian
[1] http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/TransitiveOver1.agent
--
Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English
Online at www.reengineeringllc.com
Shared use is free
Reengineering, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA
Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029
