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 12:47:58 +0100 (CET)
To: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0711091213210.20348@frege.inf.tu-dresden.de>

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Giorgos Stoilos wrote:
>
>> -----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.

I was referring to what is called the "universal role" in the SROIQ
paper. It is total. To this role, my above explanation applies.

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 11:48:17 GMT

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