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

RE: Semantics of antisymmetric properties

From: Boris Motik <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:11:12 -0000
To: "'Evren Sirin'" <evren@clarkparsia.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001001c76161$b7e94ab0$27c35882@wolf>

Hello,

You are right; this is a kind of a bug. Namely, we have followed the SROIQ
paper, in which they say "antisymmetric", but the definition of the
semantics is exactly as in OWL 1.1. Probably we should change the spec to
call such properties asymmetric instead of antisymmetric.

Sincerely yours,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Evren Sirin
> Sent: 07 March 2007 21:16
> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Subject: Semantics of antisymmetric properties
> 
> 
> The standard definition of antisymmetry is "R(x,y) and R(y,x) implies
> x=y". In OWL 1.1 semantics document, we have the definition "( x , y )
> in RIpo implies ( y , x ) is not in RIpo" which is not the same
> definition and suggests that antisymmetric properties are irreflexive
> (because x could be equivalent to y and it is not allowed yb this
> definition). Is this a bug in the definition?
> 
> Regards,
> Evren
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 09:12:02 GMT

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