W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Assertions vs. declarations

From: Nick Drummond <nick.drummond@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: 31 Mar 2008 13:59:08 +0100
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Message-ID: <Prayer.1.0.12.0803311359080.12505@webmail.cs.man.ac.uk>

We've used "Property/Role Characteristics" in the tools.

Nick


On Mar 29 2008, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> 
> On Mar 29, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Marco Colombetti wrote:
> 
> > Thank you, Bijan.
> >
> > In "The even more irresistible etc." it is said that "the roles  
> > knows, hasSibling, and properPartOf, should be *declared* as,  
> > respectively, reflexive, irreflexive, and antisymmetric." (I think  
> > I found other examples of this use of "declare," but I don't  
> > remember where.) In the rest of the paper, however, reflexivity  
> > axioms etc. are called "role assertions."
> 
> So they didn't call them "declarations". Seems a harmless stylistic  
> choice to me (i would find calling them declarations more  
> objectionable). I don't much care for "role assertion", but oh well.
> 
> (Consider "should be asserted as". That just doesn't scan well.)
> 
> > I agree that (Tbox/Rbox) "axiom" is the correct term, and that  
> > "(class/property) assertion" should be reserved to Abox axioms, but  
> > it would be useful to have a more specialized term that covers  
> > exactly those property axioms that are called "role assertions" in  
> > the above mentioned paper.
> >
> > Any suggestion?
> 
> I don't think it's all that useful, esp. if one is trying to rigidly  
> distinguishing it from e.g., subproperty axioms. They are all part of  
> the RBox.
> 
> But coin your own. I sincerely we'll get much convergence. (See the  
> use of 'role' and 'property' the latter which is in conflict with the  
> common use of property to also include unary predicates.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 15:23:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:56 GMT