Re: Antwort: Re: WOWG ADMIN IMPORTANT: Issue list: cleanup of ISSUES 2.1-3.4

On June 6, ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com writes:
> Hallo Ian:
> 
> from a applicational point of view both enumerated classes (one-of) AND inverse 
> are very necessary (not to say indispensible!)

Hi Rudiger,

First off, I would like to make it clear that my remarks weren't
intended to indicate a position as to whether inverse and/or oneOf
should/should not be included in the language - I was only trying to
inform the discussion.

> 
> If both features together makes reasoning much more complicated - I don't know 
> what to do.
> 
> Can we find a way which allows the user to use both features which will (in a 
> normal case or so) NOT result in reasoning complications?
> For instance, in many cases inverse relations will be used only as a kind of 
> syntactic sugar (no additional semantic provided in comparison to the original 
> relation). But can users not familiar with DL understand such aspects of 
> modeling?

I'm not sure what you mean by syntactic sugar in this context. Perhaps
you mean that asserting either [x R y] or [x inv-R y] is taken to be
equivalent to asserting both, and that otherwise there is no semantic
relationship between R and inv-R? I believe that this should be
possible from a technical perspective (Grail uses a similar device),
but might not meet user requirements.

Regards, Ian

> 
> Regards
> 
> Ruediger