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

Re: Literals in OWL - Clarification

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:40:26 +0000
Message-Id: <454D9117-C9E9-4D3B-84EC-7598EBE4272E@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Matt Williams <matthew.williams@cancer.org.uk>

On 18 Jan 2008, at 08:05, Matt Williams wrote:

> Dear Bijan,
>
> Thanks for these - I should have been more exact: I am looking for  
> a definition of an OWL literal. Something of the form:
>
> "An atom is of the form C(i) or R(i,j) or S(i,d); A literal is an  
> atom or a negated atom"
>
> I'm sure it exists - I just can't find it.

Oh. Sorry. Certainly not in the OWL specs and it wouldn't show up in  
tableau oriented papers. The right place to look is in the papers on  
resolution and description logics, e.g.,
	http://web.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/work/boris.motik/publications/ 
km06shoiq.pdf

If you need a canonical citation of a definition (I think the above  
paper sorta presumes basic stuff), you might look at some of Renate  
Schmit's papers or KAON2 papers or HermiT or the like. Keywords that  
might help are "structural transformation" or "translation to FOL".

I would say that a reasoanble way to define literals for DLs is to  
look at the first order translation (don't forget (in)equality).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2008 16:38:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT