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

Re: A proposal for introducing anonymous individuals into OWL 1.1 functional-style syntax

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:39:56 +0000
Message-ID: <47B460CC.3090003@hpl.hp.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Boris Motik wrote:
 > Please let us know how you feel about this proposal.

Cautiously optimistic!

> Finally, we would extend the semantics document to treat anonymous
> individuals in exactly the same way as this is done in SPARQL. This would give 
 > us a slightly weaker semantics than what is currently
> available in OWL (1.0) Full.

Please can you give an example illustrating the difference?

I had thought that in some sense (well a model-theoretic sense) SPARQL 
is largely semantic-free, i.e. it is best thought of as a syntactic 
algebra rather than a model theory ....

An example I wondered about would be if we set up a class Person, and a 
property parent with domain and range Person; and require each Person to 
have at least one parent, and have <fred> as a Person, is soemthing like 
the following entailed?

<fred> parent _:a .
_:a parent _:b .
_:b parent _:c .
_:c parent _:d .

i.e. the great great grandfather entailment?

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:40:42 UTC

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