W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2008

Re: Managing Co-reference (Was: A Semantic Elephant?)

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 08:38:07 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0805201538g11dc3aa4nd3a369482ab4cc33@mail.gmail.com>
To: semantic-web@w3.org

2008/5/21 Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>:
>
> Hi Thomas
>
>> suddenly so quiet here :-)
>
> Waiting for you to speak. The silence before Thomas is already Thomas [1]
>>
>> Re-reading the OWL spec I found that owl:sameAs has domain & range =
>> owl:Thing.
>> So any two concepts which are not derived from owl:Thing cannot be
>> connected by owl:sameAs.
>
> We are in an open world, and domain and range act as both necessary and
> sufficient conditions.
> a:foo  owl:sameAs  b:bar
> entails
> a:foo  a  owl:Thing
> b:bar  a  owl:Thing
>>
>> OWL object properties are not a super market of social interreferencing
>> :-)
>>
>> However, isn't everything an owl:Thing?
>> I have to confess, reading the specs, I am not that sure.
>> Am I an owl:Nothing?
>
> No, as soon as you declare to be the same as yourself
> :Thomas   owl:sameAs  :Thomas
> entails
> :Thomas  a   owl:Thing

If a statement entails a range or domain, as above, and there is no
other declaration then do you assume the range and class are both new
valid knowledge statements? I always thought range and domain were for
verification not rdf:type declaration... Maybe I just don't understand
the open world assumption well enough. Are any other statements other
than sameAs, range and domain affected by this?

Peter
Received on Tuesday, 20 May 2008 22:38:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:22 GMT