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

Re: Assertions vs. declarations

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:25:02 +0000
Message-Id: <487BB7F8-7DD9-4C98-A0D0-A203BD467D04@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: "Marco Colombetti" <colombet@elet.polimi.it>

On 26 Mar 2008, at 17:00, Marco Colombetti wrote:

> I’m kind of dissatisfied with the use of the terms “assertion” and  
> “declaration” in the OWL literature.

Some pointers to where this happens would be helpful. I've not  
noticed these.

> Axioms like DisjointClasses(C,D) are often called “class  
> assertions”, and axioms like FunctionalObjectProperty(P) are called  
> “(object) property assertions”.

I wouldn't do that. I'd call them "class axioms" and "property  
axioms". (I wouldn't *want* to do that...perhaps I've slipped  
somewhere.) It's relatively harmless since they are declarative  
sentences typically presented in an assertional voice. But they are  
TBox and RBox axioms, not ABox :)

> Unfortunately, also Abox assertions like ClassAssertion(a C) are  
> called “class assertion”s, and Abox assertions like  
> ObjectPropertyAssertion(P a b) are called (object) “property  
> assertions”.

Yeah, that's ok by me.

> The former type of assertions are sometimes called “declarations”,

Where? That's evil.

> but unfortunately OWL has a different notion of declaration,  
> likeDeclaration(OWLClass(A)).

And "declaration" for tbox axioms is just *wrong* :)

> Any suggestion on how to call axioms like DisjointClasses(C,D) and  
> FunctionalObjectProperty(P) without creating confusion?

"Class axioms" and "Property axioms" and use ClassAssertion and  
PropertyAssertion for the abox statements. Or TBox and RBox in the  
right contexts.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 19:23:29 GMT

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