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

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

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:39:07 +0100
Message-ID: <15615.22507.387718.185188@merlin.oaklands.net>
To: ruediger.klein@daimlerchrysler.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

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
Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 08:41:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:44 UTC