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

RE: What is the rationale for "*:x rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual" ?

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:51 -0000
To: "'Bijan Parsia'" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <514A21241E244EA7BD80A8B7437DDC2D@wolf>

I agree with Bijan: we should not overload vocabulary in the syntax.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bijan Parsia [mailto:bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk]
> Sent: 11 November 2008 14:15
> To: Alan Ruttenberg
> Cc: Boris Motik; W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: Re: What is the rationale for "*:x rdf:type owl:NamedIndividual" ?
> 
> On 11 Nov 2008, at 13:59, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 4:37 AM, Boris Motik
> > <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> This declaration has no special meaning: owl:NamedIndividual is
> >> not assigned any special meaning in the vocabulary of OWL 2. The
> >> vocabulary element is used only to denote that 8:x is declared.
> >>
> >> Note that writing *:x rdf:type olw:Thing would be ambiguous. You
> >> get the same triple by serializing this axiom:
> >>
> >> ClassAssertion( owl:Thing *:x )
> >
> > This is a useless axiom. Therefore I suggest that we consider it the
> > declaration.
> 
> It's really not a good idea to try to overload tautologies with other
> meaning. This leads to things like the min 0 debacle. Declarations
> are declarations.
> 
> (A simple example of how this can go pear shaped, this is an
> entailment but we don't want declarations to be entailments.)
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 11 November 2008 16:45:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 November 2008 16:45:36 GMT