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

Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:53:38 +0000
Message-ID: <47ED0672.8020506@hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Michael Schneider wrote:

> But if contradicting property assertions such as
> 
>     a r b
>     NOT ( a r b )
> 
> would really be out of scope in RDF in principle, then I would not know how
> to answer the question why contradicting class assertions such as
> 
>     a rdf:type c
>     a rdf:type COMPLEMENT(c)
> 
> or contradicting class axioms such as
> 
>     c1 owl:equivalentClass c2
>     c1 owl:complementOf c2
> 
> should be regarded to be ok? 
> 
> At least, I don't remember having ever heard RDF people complaining about
> the latter two.
> 


Oh I only meant within RDF - complementOf is an OWL functionality.
Some capability to contradict oneself is present in RDF due to lierals, 
but it is a blemish in a system that is generally additive and liberal.

I think RDF applications that add a little-bit-of-OWL, will tend to 
avoid complementOf.
If you want negation, which OWL does provide, I think you want quite a 
lot of OWL ...

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 14:55:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 28 March 2008 14:55:21 GMT