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

New comment: NegativePropertyAssertions

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 15:26:54 -0700
To: <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003201c9d350$c0f1b440$42d51cc0$@com>

We suggest replacing the two mapping rules:

NegativeDataPropertyAssertion( DPE a lt ) 	
=>
 _:x rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion .
_:x owl:sourceIndividual T(a) .
_:x owl:assertionProperty T(DPE) .
_:x owl:targetValue T(lt) .

And

NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion( OPE a1 a2 ) 	 
=>
_:x rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion .
_:x owl:sourceIndividual T(a1) .
_:x owl:assertionProperty T(OPE) .
_:x owl:targetIndividual T(a2) .

We suggest the following alternative to the second one (the first is similar):

NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion( OPE a1 a2 ) 	 
=>
T(a1) rdf:type _:c .
_:c rdf:type owl:Class .
_:c owl:complementOf _:r .
_:r rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:r owl:onProperty T(OPE) .
_:x owl:hasValue T(a2) .


The merits are:
a) reduces need for additional vocabulary
b) makes it clear that this is an advanced feature that is unlikely to be interoperability supported

Jeremy Carroll, AC Rep, TopQuadrant, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 12 May 2009 22:27:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 May 2009 22:27:37 GMT