Hi, below is a brief explanation of the "universal property" as mentioned in earlier discussions and emails: - let's assume we had an object property, owl:universal, that comes with the following restriction to its interpretation: it is symmetric, transitive (and thereby reflexive), and a super-property of all other properties (or those found in the ontology that owl:universal is used in) - we can use owl:universal to "simulate" (proper) existential quantification: e.g. (someValuesFrom owl:universal C) holds of an individual if somewhere in our interpretation domain, an instance of C exists. Similarly, (allValuesFrom owl:universal C) holds of an individual if all individuals are instances of C. For example, we could say that (someValuesFrom owl:universal God) SubclassOf (allValuesFrom owl:universal SeenByGod) to say that, if god exists, then she sees everything... - hence we can use this universal role to talk about elements "somewhere" in the universe/interpretation domain, and thus as an alternative to unnamed individuals. - it is computationally unproblematically and basically syntactic sugar because we can express it in OWL11....but - I still think it would be useful syntactic sugar. Cheers, UliReceived on Wednesday, 16 January 2008 16:06:57 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 16 January 2008 16:06:58 GMT