Two follow-ups from today's post:
* OWL Cardinality "If minimum cardinality means nothing in an open world, then there was very little point in including it in the OWL language. Whoever did so probably forgot about the open world assumption at the time. I can't blame them, as I find it very easy to forget. So I think I should assume that the intent was for this to operate in a closed world assumption. Similarly, I have to assume the same about the intent of maximum cardinality."
* An inconsistency or not? "As you can see from the above sentences, Harry is a Person.
And, by r1, Harry can have exactly one value for hasFather property.
But, it is asserted that Harry has two different
values, John & Johnny, for hasFather property.
I can't decide which of the following is true.
A. John and Johnny are actually the same individual.
B. The above sequence of sentences are inconsistent."