W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > January 2009

Re: ACTION-268

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:17:17 +0000
Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FC6FE47F-93CF-45EF-861B-E2546A42BBFE@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>

I don't understand this as a reply to my message or my action.

On 21 Jan 2009, at 23:00, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> Regarding documentation  related to JH1 :
> 1) I can see that Boris had already extensively documented the  
> 'named' issue in the Syntax and added an example of non inference  
> with no named instance. The sentence below might be merged/moved to  
> it.

? My sentences is in the syntax.

> 2)
> - the NF&R has already asserted  that a  haskey axiom only concerns  
> named instances of a class C as well:
> "A HasKey axiom states that each named instance of a class is  
> uniquely identified by a (data or object) property or a set of  
> properties"
> - The example also stresses that a haskey axiom does not state that  
> each instance of the class C has at least one value for the key  
> property
> - As proposed at last TC, I have now extended the comment of the  
> example in adding the sentence "The inference that each patient who  
> has a a:hasWaitingListN belongs to the class a:RegisteredPatient  
> cannot be drawn "
> so as to make it clear that the inference of belonging to the class  
> cannot be drawn, which was, if I remember correctly, the initial  
> point of the discussion.

Again, nothing to do with my action.

However, it misses the point. The commenter understood the semantics,  
just didn't see the rationale. The point of putting something in the  
NF&R is to, well, you know, document the rationale.

> 3) Moreover there is also an addition done by Michael  in RDF-Based  
> Sem. in section 5.14
> "Keys provide an alternative to inverse functional properties (see  
> Table 5.13). They allow for defining a property as a key local to a  
> given class: the specified property will have the features of a key  
> only for individuals within the class, and no assumption is made  
> about individuals external to the class, or for which it is unknown  
> whether they are instances of the class. Further, it is possible to  
> define "compound keys", i.e. several properties can be combined into  
> a single key applicable to composite values.

Again, nothing to do with my action.

Again, this merely documents but does not give the rationale.

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 23:17:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:08 UTC