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

Re: OWL Full proposal (sort of) - addressing my Action

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:25:01 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080206.202501.199108092.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: OWL Full proposal (sort of) - addressing my Action
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:01:14 -0500

> As you'll recall. I was a big fan of the DAML+OIL situation, and feel  
> that if we'd stayed closer to that model in OWL 1.0 we might have been  
> better off.  However, there was some functionality that was perimtted  
> (or at least not forbidden) in DAML+OIL (cf. inverseFunctional  
> Datatypes) that was not reflected in OWL DL.  I am very happy to move  
> forward to the past in this case :-)
>   -JH
> p.s. One thing I didn't like in DAML+OIL was the QCR solution which  
> required special syntax, so I guess we're back to the past in several  
> ways :-)


Actually, in DAML+OIL UnambiguousProperty (read
InverseFunctionalProperty) was a subclass of ObjectProperty, so DAML+OIL
did not allow inverse functional datatype properties at all.

At http://www.daml.org/2001/03/reference#UnambigousProperty-def 

* an daml:UnambigousProperty element, which is a subclass of

  This asserts that an instance y can only be the value of P for a
  single instance x, i.e: there cannot be two distinct instances x1 and
  x2 such that both (x1,y) and (x2,y) are both instances of P. Notice
  that the inverse property of a UniqueProperty is always an
  UnambigousProperty and vice versa.

and in http://www.daml.org/2001/03/model-theoretic-semantics

     for y in AD, if <x,y> in IR(?P) and <z,y> in IR(?P) then x=z

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2008 01:28:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC