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

Re: LANG: closing issue 4.6 (was Re: ADMIN: Draf agenda for July 25 telecon)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:52:50 +0200
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9CBC7B05.1EE709B3-ONC1256C00.0077D39B@agfa.be>

[...]
> > Option 2: The sameXxxAs properties are not subproperties of 
equivalentTo.
> >
> > In this option the standard way of saying that two classes have the 
same
> > extension does not imply that they denote the same object.  Here
> > sameClassAs is exactly the same as having two subClassOf 
relationships.
> >
> > This option does not depend on any particular answer to the classes as
> > instances issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > I vote for option 2.
> 
> That's my preference for how sameClassAs works too.

OK, that was not my DAML understanding so far
but I'm now convinced that option 2 is better

just that
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapVocabP.n3
is then not entailing anymore
http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/mapVocabC.n3
unless it would say
:all ont:equivalentTo ont:intersectionOf.
(at least, that's what we have tested)

> A couple test cases: first, an obvious one:
> 
> 
>       :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile.
>       :car1 rdf:type :Car.
>       ==>
>       :car1 rdf:type :Automobile.

OK

> now, one that shows the distinction:
> 
>       :Car owl:sameClassAs :Automobile.
>       :Car :averagePrice "20000".
>       =?=>
>       :Automobile :averagePrice "20000".
> 
> Like Peter, prefer that this entailment does *not* old.
> Why? Because this is the minimally constraining design.

OK, that one does not hold

> And a third test, to give an example of the sorts
> of thing I do that we'd lose if we struck equivalentTo
> (and/or decided against classes as instances):
> 
>       :Car owl:equivalentTo :Automobile.
>       :car1 rdf:type :Car.
>       :Car :averagePrice "20000".
>       :Automobile :averageWeight "2000".
>       =?=>
>       :car1 rdf:type _:someClass.
>       _:someClass :averagePrice "20000".
>       _:someClass :averageWeight "2000".
> 
> I'm still thinking about whether I really, really need this in
> owl or not.

I would keep that entailment
(just can't see why that one would not hold)

> If owl didn't provide it, I could probably make my own
> that's a subproperty of all three sameXXXAs.
> Sounds like Jeff H. and I would want to agree on
> how to spell it so our stuff could interoperate.
> Gee... sounds like it might be worth standardizing...
> 1/2 ;-)

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 17:53:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT