- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2014 11:47:23 +0100
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>, Michael Wessel <wessel@racer-systems.com>
- Cc: public-owl-comments@w3.org, Boris Motik <boris.motik@cs.ox.ac.uk>
Dear Peter and Michael, Thanks for highlighting these issues. I finally got around to adding it to the list of errata (https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/OWL_Errata). Regards, Ian On 11 Apr 2014, at 22:09, "Patel-Schneider, Peter" <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com> wrote: > The OWL Structural Specification and Function-Style Syntax states for most syntactic constructs with an arbitrary number of arguments that these arguments are considered to be a set under structural similarity. > > This causes no problems for many of these syntactic constructs but there are a few where removing duplicates changes the meaning of the construct. > > For example, according to the wording in section 9.1.3 of SS&FS > > DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:foo ex:bar ) > > implies that ex:foo is empty, which is very different from > > DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:bar ) > > It would not be easy to simply change these constructs to take multisets because the OWL API would have to be changed. > > > I propose the following fix: > > 1/ The functional-style syntax requires that the arguments to DisjointClasses, DisjointObjectProperties, DisjointDataProperties, and DifferentIndividuals and all but the first argument to DisjointUnion all be structurally different. > > 2/ When converting the triple x owl:disjointWith y where x and y are structurally similar the axiom SubClassOf( CE(x) owl:Nothing ) is produced. > > > This is not an ideal fix by any means, but a better fix would require much more significant changes in deployed software. > > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:48:56 UTC