- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:39:56 +0000
- 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? Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:40:42 UTC