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

Re: Proposal and Test cases (Re: skolems: visible differences?)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:25:06 +0000
Message-ID: <478E05B2.1010508@hpl.hp.com>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>> TEST 5:
>>     ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y)
>> does not entail
>>     ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y)

> One can mitigate the surprise of test 5 by allowing users to set the 
> scope of the bnode ids 

I prefered earlier blurb where you talked about renaming the bnodes (in 
this case with the identity function)

earlier text: [[
The solution, I think, is to point out that one is permitted to 
substitue individualNames for fresh individualNames without changing the 
meaning of an ontology.

>> TEST 6:
>>     ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x _:y)
>>     ObjectPropertyAssertion(:p :x :z)
>>     ClassAssertion( :p ObjectExactCardinality( 1, :x ) )
>> is consistent

This test was motivated because it wasn't clear to me that your 
definition said this. As long as its meant to say this, then I am happy 
at this stage, (it's more important to understand the intent than the 
actual text right now)

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 13:25:25 UTC

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