W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: ACTION: task force unasserted triples

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 15:10:20 +0100
To: "Guus Schreiber" <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>, "WebOnt WG" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDGEMMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

My take on this, 

> 1. Rationale for the request, including at least one understandable
> example which motivates the request. 

I think we now have a number of examples, which I will try and
package together for the WG's consideration. In particular
I find Peter's latest example as one that is most convincing
of the need for dark triples (but least compelling from the 
point of view of the example itself - i.e. I would prefer to
not have that class entailment).

> 2. How do "unasserted triples" solve this problem?

(On a different thread).

> 3. What do we lose (if anything) when adopting unasserted triples?  
> (See, e.g., Problems with dark triples approach, Jeremy Carroll Wed, Apr
> 17 2002
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Apr/0132.html)

I think a test case in which we assume that some specific 
property is only ever used in an unasserted fashion
e.g. owl:intersectionOf may be interesting.

Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 10:11:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:43 UTC