W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Annotation entailment?

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:28:55 -0400
Message-Id: <82B904B0-25D0-495C-BE4B-F1B05AD730D3@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL list <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

I have recently understood it to be the case that this *is* entailed.  
However, I don't think that it is desirable, and it seems to be the  
case that there is no OWL-DL reasoner that attempts to be sound and  
(otherwise) complete that implements this behavior, at least that I'm  
aware of.

What do you think of this behavior? Is it is what you expected or  
wanted? If so, I'd be interested hearing about your use case.

Until recently it was my (flawed) understanding that statements  
involving annotation properties were to be ignored by a reasoner.

-Alan


On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:

>
> Does
> ex:A rdf:label "Groo".
> ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
> entail
> ex:B rdf:label "Groo"?
>
> i.e. are annotation property instances connected to the URI or the  
> underlying individual?
> (And respectively for classes and properties)
>
> Wondering,
> denny
>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 06:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT