From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:10:24 -0400

Message-ID: <29af5e2d1003291410o383514f9w4ef265cea106aa7d@mail.gmail.com>

To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org

Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:10:24 -0400

Message-ID: <29af5e2d1003291410o383514f9w4ef265cea106aa7d@mail.gmail.com>

To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > > 1. A bug in the OWL 2 Direct Semantics > > Section 2.3 of the Direct Semantics document defines the ISNAMED function, which is used in the definition of the semantics of easy keys. Unfortunately, this function has been defined to be true for an element of the domain *if and only if* it interprets a named individual, whereas it should be true *if* an element interprets a named individual (leaving open whether ISNAMED is true for other elements). This makes easy keys not so easy: as a side-effect of this definition, ISNAMED acts as a nominal, which has consequences for the computational properties of the profiles. In particular, ontology entailment (which is the basic computational problem for OWL 2) becomes NP-hard with keys in OWL 2 EL. > > We can fix the error by the following two steps: > - We need to make ISNAMED a part of an interpretation. Thus, an interpretation needs to become a tuple of the form I = ( ΔI , ΔD , ⋅ C , ⋅ OP , ⋅ DP , ⋅ I , ⋅ DT , ⋅ LT , ⋅ FA , ISNAMED). > - We need to weaken the definition of ISNAMED from iff to if. That is, for each named individual a, ISNAMED(a^I) must be true (but not the other way around). Wouldn't that mean that there could be a valid OWL ontology where isNamed is true of an anonymous individual? How would such an ontology be expressed in the functional syntax? -AlanReceived on Monday, 29 March 2010 21:11:16 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:30 UTC
*