W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics of anonymous individuals)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:49:41 +0200
Message-Id: <6F411B2E-22B4-41C8-8EC4-6DBF635AF04D@gmail.com>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>


On Aug 28, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Boris Motik wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> They could; however, the existing way of handling things is  
> deliberate, as it makes the structural specification more uniform.

Uniform in what way? I would think that having global restrictions be  
truly global would be a clearer benefit if sensibility of the spec is  
a desirable.

> Furthermore, as already discussed, there is no observable  
> difference between the Skolem semantics and the existential one for  
> all
> inference problems apart from certain entailments, which DL users  
> are typically not interested in anyway. In such cases, without
> changing the set of "interesting" consequences, one can skolemize  
> the anonymous individuals; but then, one can freely drop the
> global restrictions altogether without funning into decidability  
> problems. The way resolution of ISSUE-118 has been implemented
> allows precisely for that: a tool can simply forget about Global  
> Restrictions 4 and 5 and obtain a language that can be interpreted
> under the Skolem semantics for all practical intents and purposes.

Yes, but what language would that be? Why would we want to enable  
that? Skolem semantics isn't an option we support in any of our  
profiles.

-Alan


>
> Regards,
>
> 	Boris
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 28 August 2008 02:13
>> To: Boris Motik
>> Cc: 'W3C OWL Working Group'
>> Subject: Re: ACTION-203 done (resolution of ISSUE-118 - semantics  
>> of anonymous individuals)
>>
>> Couldn't the Same/DifferentIndividuals, and Negative property
>> assertion restrictions be handled in the grammar - they seem local
>> rather than global.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> * <span class="nonterminal">SameIndividual</span>, <span
>> class="nonterminal">DifferentIndividuals</span>, <span
>> class="nonterminal">NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion</span>, and <span
>> class="nonterminal">NegativeDataPropertyAssertion</span>.
>>
>> ps. The Syntax link is http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?
>> title=Syntax&diff=11932&oldid=11929 as best I can tell.
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Boris Motik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I've just implemented my ACTION-203, which was to implement
>>> resolution of ISSUE-118 (semantics of anonymous individuals).  
>>> Here are
>>> the diffs for various documents:
>>>
>>> Semantics:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?
>>> title=Semantics&diff=11942&oldid=11531
>>>
>>> Syntax:
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
>>> title=Syntax&action=history
>>>
>>> Please let me know should you have any comments.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> 	Boris
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 28 August 2008 08:50:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 August 2008 08:50:26 GMT