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 18:57:01 +0200
Message-Id: <200703121656.l2CGus5c004473@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Boris Motik'" <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Michael Schneider'" <m_schnei@gmx.de>
Cc: <evren@clarkparsia.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Oh I see now. You mean that we do now how to reason about asymmetric but not
about antisymmetric properties. 

Best,
G. Stoilos

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boris Motik [mailto:bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: 'Michael Schneider'; gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr
> Cc: evren@clarkparsia.com; public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Semantics of antisymmetric properties
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I would just like to point out an important issue: we currently don't know
> how to reason with antisymmetric properties. In fact, we don't even know
> whether reasoning in SROIQ with antisymmetric properties is decidable.
> Hence, for the time being at least, I don't believe we have a choice other
> than to rename antisymmetric into asymmetric.
> 
> Sincerely yours,
> 
> 	Boris
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Schneider [mailto:m_schnei@gmx.de]
> > Sent: 12 March 2007 15:24
> > To: gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr
> > Cc: bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk; evren@clarkparsia.com; public-owl-dev@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Semantics of antisymmetric properties
> >
> > Giorgos Stoilos wrote on Mon, 12 Mar 2007:
> >
> > > I guess the true question is "what semantics where really meant to be
> > > captured"? Those of asymmetric or antisymmetric properties?
> >
> > My opinion: I would prefer /antisymmetric/ properties (from "x p y" and
> > "y p x" follows "x=y"). Then, to model some real asymmetric property
> > like e.g. 'hasFather', I can easily add a "IrreflexiveObjectProperty"
> > axiom to the ontology. On the other hand, I then do not get into
> > problems with properties like 'locatedIn', where it could be ok to say
> > that some 'Location' is 'locatedIn' itself. Adding a global
> > 'ReflexiveObjectProperty' axiom to the ontology or define some local
> > 'SelfRestriction' for the 'Location' class on that property would then
> > be consistent.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> >
> > > 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
Received on Monday, 12 March 2007 16:57:43 GMT

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