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

Re: Issue: Add hasValue to OWL Lite

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:43:40 -0500
Message-Id: <p0511171eba1d619cd9ec@[]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frank van Harmelen <Frank.van.Harmelen@cs.vu.nl>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

At 9:26 PM +0000 12/11/02, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>On December 11, Jim Hendler writes:
>>  Question - I may be misunderstanding some of the OWL semantics, but
>>  if I say that something is restricted to be an owl:oneOf (which is in
>>  Lite), and then only give the list a single element - isn't that the
>>  same as doing a hasValue?  If we can already do that in Lite, why
>>  adding hasValue be worse?
>If you care to look in the feature synopsis you will find:
>2.2 OWL Synopsis
>The expanded summary listing of OWL adds the following:
>2.2.1 OWL Class Axioms Synopsis
>     * oneOf (enumerated classes)
>I.e., oneOf is *not* in OWL Lite.

oops, apologies, now I have to work harder - but without oneOf or 
HasValue we're gonna have a lot of pissed off campers...

I still am looking for the demonstration that hasValue pushes us into 
a more complex class - suspect cardinality=1 would let me state 
something is unique, and thus have to reason two things are the same 
- but haven't got the time to flesh this out...
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 16:43:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC