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

Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty (fwd)

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 08:02:13 -0400 (EDT)
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0206060800200.15712-100000@tux.w3.org>


Re motivating daml:UnambiguousProperty, here are some public but offlist
notes I made a little while ago, and which Libby just mentioned.

Dan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:34:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: connolly@w3.org, massimo@w3.org, www-archive@w3.org,
     libby.miller@bris.ac.uk, Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty
Resent-Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-From: www-archive@w3.org



Oops, Guus and Libby's addresses were missing from CC list; resending.

imho UnambiguousProperty is the most important thing for WebOnt to get
riht, and since there are some subtleties (eg. unambiguity of a property
over time) is is important for WebOnt to write down the reason it has
this construct. Below is a draft that might be useful for this.

cheers,

Dan

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dan Brickley wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 29 May 2002, Jim Hendler wrote:
>
> >
> > Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty
> >
> >   Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
> >
> >    The issue here was that the requirements document didn't motivate
> > this language feature.  However, no one has advocated its removal and
> > there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature.  It is
> > provided for in DAML+OIL and will be provided in OWL.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> For completeness, I'll try to motivate the issue:
>
> Many, perhaps all of the Web Ontology requirements are based around needs
> associated with the interchange of resource descriptions in the World Wide
> Web. The parties that produce and consume these descriptions will be
> loosly co-ordinated.  As such, conventions are needed that make it
> possible for these parties to be clear _which_ resources are being
> described. The Web architecture provides for the use of URI syntax for
> naming resources in the Web. In addition, the use of 'uniquely identifying
> properties' (aka 'unambiguous properties') provides an additional
> mechanism for describing resources which, for example, do not have widely
> agreed URI-syntax names. The formal semantics of UnambiguousProperty allow
> loosly coordinated parties to draw inferences about the identity of
> resources being described in Web data that uses these unambiguous
> properties. This complements the URI technology by allowing resources to
> be identified indirectly, by description. "The company whose homepage
> is...; the person whose telephone number is...; the image whose sha1sum
> is...".
>
>
> Offlist for now. If useful, do what you will with this text. I don't want
> to slow down the issue closure. I've copied www-archive anyway, so this is
> hyperlinkable.
>
> hth,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:02:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:50 GMT