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

RE: Semantics of antisymmetric properties

From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:08:51 +0200
Message-Id: <200703120908.l2C98ohV030118@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Boris Motik'" <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Evren Sirin'" <evren@clarkparsia.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Hi,

I guess the true question is "what semantics where really meant to be
captured"? Those of asymmetric or antisymmetric properties? And moreover,
which semantics are the implementations supporting at this point? Checking
with the reasoning algorithm in the SROIQ paper I get the feeling that it
was meant to capture antisymmetric and not asymmetric properties. Thus, it
might be a mistake on the semantics and not on the name of them.

Best,
G. Stoilos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:11 AM
> To: 'Evren Sirin'; public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Semantics of antisymmetric properties
> 
> 
> 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 Monday, 12 March 2007 09:12:32 GMT

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