W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > January 2009

Comment on NewFeatures Negative[Object,Data]PropertyAssertion

From: Joshua TAYLOR <tayloj@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:46:25 -0500
Message-ID: <1c3ea73c0901270746v9ac3f13nb9d60852094cda61@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org

Hello,

[I'm aware that the official period for last call comments has passed,
but was encouraged to send this along anyhow.]

In the "New Features and Rationale" draft [1], Section 2.1.3. F3
describes Negative[Object,Data]PropertyAssertion as syntactic sugar.
These are, indeed, just shorthand, since "not(R(a,b))" can be
rewritten as "a is in the class of elements all of whose Rs are from
the complement of the singleton class {b}". Yet the introduction to
2.1.3 F3 reads:

"While OWL 1 provides means to assert values of a property for an
individual, asserting that a property has not some values is
impossible. This requires the ability to assert facts about an
individual stating property values that it does not have."

At first I thought that perhaps the elements of enumerated classes
excluded literals (and so it would have been
NegativeDataPropertyAssertion impossible), but was then informed that
enumerated classes can contain literals, so neither
NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion nor NegativeDataPropertyAssertion are
impossible.

On a smaller note, I noticed a few typos in this and surrounding
areas. particularly, "shortand" for "shorthand", and "satements"
(2.1.2 F2, and 2.1.3 F3) for "statements" (2.1.1 F1).

//JT

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-new-features-20081202/ - This is
also the "latest version" at the time of writing.

--
Joshua Taylor
tayloj@cs.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 15:52:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 January 2009 15:52:34 GMT