W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > July 2002

a few WebOnt notes from 1Jul

From: <connolly@jammer.dm93.org>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 11:26:33 -0500
To: www-archive@w3.org, hendler@cs.umd.edu, schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
cc: connolly@w3.org
Message-Id: <E17PQU5-0000Dk-00@jammer.dm93.org>


PROPOSED: note the open issue 5.1 on the relationship to rdfs:Class
	  [ammendment: adopt owl:Class for now]

withdrawn, as there isn't sufficient consensus.


Ian: re owl:disjointWith DisjointClasses... different names
  reflect different perspectives: RDF triples vs another abstract syntax.

Raphal: doesn't seem to hurt to use different names in the abstract syntax.

JimH: let's do keep consistency between the feature synopsis and
      the reference description.

JimH: recall from a recent teleconference a desire to have an
      an actual mapping from abstract syntax to concrete;
      I hear from PeterPS that he's working on it and it's
      straightforward.

[... discussion of whether we need two terms ... ]

Guus: how about just A disjoint B.

straw poll: disjointWith all but 4 in support
  disjoint several

MikeD: propose getting rid of owl:disjointUnionOf

Evan: saying "stuff in this class is in one and only one of the following"
      is common.

DanC: yes, that's the motivation for owl:disjointUnionOf.
      So it's a question of whether the idiomatic support
      is worth the various costs (redundancy, etc.)


DanC: is "partition" a better term?

Guus: that was the term in ontolingua.

MikeD: DisjointClasses isn't in the reference description.

Guus: the reference description is the central document, yes?

MikeD: well, I saw it as a specification of the exchange syntax

[... discussion of role of reference description, model theory... ]

PROPOSED: A disjointWith B (pairwise) as in the OWL reference document.
	  ACTION to formal specification editors to add it.
	  ACTION to DebM specification editors to add it.
ACTION Mike Smith: raise an issue to have the DisjointClasses idiom
       (in particular, in the exchange syntax).
       ACTION Mike Dean to update reference document w.r.t. this issue.

RESOLVED by consensus.

adjourn for lunch. resume at 1:45pm

Resume.

Ian: a lot of these naming issues relate to a difference in style;
     the abstract syntax intentionally has this framey style.

PROPOSED: to add a mapping, in the formal specification document,
	  from abstract syntax to/from reference
	  document vocabulary (and feature synoposis).
  ACTION Ian: ensure that a new draft with the mapping is made available.
  RESOLVED.

owl:sameClassAs: no change; nothing to resolve.

owl:equivalentTo: note open issue 4.6
  ACTION Ian/formal spec, Deb/features synopsis
  to add at least a mention of it and the issue.


Property restrictions

owl:allValuesFrom, someValuesFrom per 13 Jun.
  ACTION Deb/features, Ian/formal change value to values.


JimH: they're in 2.x of the feature synopsis
owl:cardinality
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 12:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:42:08 UTC