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: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:35:09 -0000
To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000601c872f3$dd8cf100$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

The main feature of the current proposal is that, rather than using the construct by Peter that is not axiom based, bnodes are
introduced directly into the functional-style syntax. It is true that Skolem semantics are proposed, but this gives the additional
advantage that arbitrary graphs can be accommodated, so in this sense it reduces the gap between DL and Full.

It would be possible to use the same technique with existential semantics, but this would require a side condition ruling out non-
tree graphs in order to maintain decidability.

Regards,

	Boris

________________________________________
From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] 
Sent: 18 February 2008 06:27
To: Boris Motik; OWL Working Group WG
Subject: Re: A proposal for introducing anonymous individuals into OWL 1.1 functional-style syntax

Actually, maybe it is worse than skolem. It seems to me that the SPARQL semantics has a unique name assumption. Is it valid, if the
input graph is 

_:a r o
_:b r o

and the pattern

?s r o

To return a single triple?

-Alan

On Feb 18, 2008, at 12:48 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:


On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Boris Motik wrote:


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.

Hi Boris,

This seems to be the skolem proposal again, as close as I can tell. Do I misunderstand?

-Alan
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 12:36:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 February 2008 12:36:07 GMT