W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

RE: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals

From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:28:59 +0100 (CET)
To: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091125260.20348@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Giorgos Stoilos wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Carsten Lutz
>> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:21 PM
>> To: gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr
>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr wrote:
>>>
>>> Hmmm. Interesting, but as it says this is a simulation of the universal
>>> role. And apparently a reflexive, symmetric and transitive super-role
>> does
>>> not give you a total relation (as you said in your original mail). Does
>> this
>>> have any impact on your technique on representing anonymous individuals?
>>
>> No. The representation I mentioned only relies on having the universal
>> role available in existential and universal quantifiers. SROIQ has this.
>> On top of this, all that matters is that the algorithm is correct, but
>> not what precisely it does internally.
>>
>
> Right. If we are talking about the super-role (reflexive, transitive,
> symmetric and super-role of every role) and not the top or totally ordered
> role, then I believe everything is fine. After all, this role was used in
> internalization for quite sometime.

Look. The algorithm we are talking about consists of two parts: first,
reduce away the universal role and some other stuff; second, use the
tableau.  This is *ONE* algorithm, i.e., that these are *two* steps is
internal to the algorithm and we don't have to care. The (overall!)
algorithm is for SROIQ, and it is correct. SROIQ has the true
universal role. Regarding the stuff with the anonymous individuals,
which is completely *outside* the algorithm, you can thus forget about
the super-role stuff, which is *inside* the algorithm.

greetings,
 		Carsten

--
*      Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden       *
*     Office phone:++49 351 46339171   mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de     *
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 10:29:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT