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

RE: Question re: HasKey entailments

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:23:36 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0EA7084@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Jim Hendler" <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Jim!

Since this is now considered an official LC comment, this has to be
discussed by the rest of the WG, which might take some time. :)

But for the moment, I have done what I can do myself, and have revised the
text in the RDF-Based Semantics a bit, which is not yet a LC document.
Please see

 
<http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics#Semantic_Conditions_for
_Keys>

and tell me if this is sufficient (modulo my bad English :-(; will be
revised by a native speaker at the end). 

But please keep in mind that all these texts preceding the different tables
are not intended to be teaching stuff, but instead are meant to be very
concise overviews (or "reminders") on what the respective semantic
conditions are about. An elaborative explanation of the features should be
in other documents, e.g. in the "New Features" document [1].

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/New_Features_and_Rationale>

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Jim Hendler
>Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 3:20 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: OWL Working Group WG
>Subject: Re: Question re: HasKey entailments
>
>
>Michael-
>  I understand that that is the way it works now, and I hadn't really
>thought about the idea of "local" keys -- I wonder about that design
>decision, but won't argue.  However, given the somwwhat non-intuitive
>nature of this (at least to some people, including me) perhaps the
>document should include either a better explanation of why the class
>assertion about Peter is needed and/or an explicit mention of the fact
>that the HasKey doesn't make the :PropertyDomain assertion and/or an
>example that makes some sense of this (the best I've come up with is a
>contrived example where some sort of permission is unique to managers
>but non-key to regular employees, or something like that)
>  So I hereby raise this as a LC Document issue (I believe the right
>terminology) -- i.e. the design is okay, but the documentation should
>better reflect it
>    -JH
>p.s. I would suggest this change in the syntax/structure document
>itself, again, since this will be nonintuitive to at least some users
>and is likely to cause to the creation of buggy ontologies in OWL 2.0
>if not explained

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus



Received on Tuesday, 30 December 2008 22:24:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 30 December 2008 22:24:20 GMT