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

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

From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 13:01:50 +0200
Message-Id: <200711091101.lA9B1o6p027781@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Carsten Lutz'" <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carsten Lutz [mailto:clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:29 PM
> To: Giorgos Stoilos
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals
> 
> 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.

I am aware of that. 

I think there is a misunderstanding. In your original mail you spoke about a
*total* role, which is (as far as I know) different than the *top* role,
which SROIQ does whatever it wants with it. 

Anyway, as I said before I am ok with the top role.

Greetings,
-gstoil

> 
> 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 11:02:14 GMT

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