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

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-12

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:55:19 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080326.065519.266270656.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-12
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:44:30 -0400

> On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:32 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > 2/ Annotations on axioms that generate a fresh blank node put the
> >    annotation on that blank node, as is done already for negative
> >    property assersions
> >    e.g.,  DisjointClasses(Annotation(a "bar") c1 c2 c3) becomes
> >    	  _:x rdf:type owl11:AllDisjointClasses
> > 	  _:x owl11:members SEQ(c1 c2 c3)
> > 	  _:x a "bar"
> 
> 
> 
> > 3/ Other annotations on axioms that generate multiple triples (e.g.,
> > EquivalentObjectProperties) result in the triples being reified and
> >    each annotation attached to each of the reified triples.
> 
> For such cases as EquivalentObjectProperties, can we not add an extra
> fresh blank bnode to the set of entities and then use approach 2? On the
> DL-side this can be ignored, on the full side, as existential it is
> satisfied by any other element of the set.
> 
> -Alan
> 

You mean adding a new anonymous property - one that cannot be used in
assertions?  This is intriguing in some sense, but the idea of "adding"
new entities is a bit scary.  As well, there is then the same issue of
where the annotation gets attached on the reverse mapping and how to
distinguish it from entity annotations.

peter
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2008 11:01:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 March 2008 11:01:22 GMT