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

Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty

From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 10:15:59 +0100 (BST)
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
cc: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>, Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, webont <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0206071015250.10675-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>


ok, thanks Ian, that clarifies things for me. Yeah, I have constant
trouble with the names too...

libby

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> On June 6, Libby Miller writes:
> >
> >
> > Ian, could you expand on that a little? I'm not sure I get it.
>
> Libby,
>
> Sorry, I was mixing up unambiguous with uniquelyDefining - a mistake
> anyone could make (better names PLEASE!) - it never occurred to me that
> we might be considering dispensing with functional properties, given
> their obvious utility.
>
> With respect to uniquelyDefining, the point is that asserting that P
> is a uniquelyDefining property can be viewed as syntactic sugar for
> stating that (inverse P) is an unambiguous property. So
> uniquelyDefining and inverse are connected (to some extent).
>
> Ian
>
> >
> > Jim: Dan Brickley has also provided some motivating examples if it would
> > help. I also did a paper for XMLEurope which discussed some possible
> > uses of this property:
> >
> > http://ilrt.org/discovery/2002/03/skical-daml/
> >
> > Libby
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On May 29, Jim Hendler writes:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > This issue may be tied to the INVERSE issue. UnambiguousProperty
> > > really means functionality w.r.t. the inverse property. If we no
> > > longer support inverse, then it seems a little strange to be able to
> > > assert its functionality.
> > >
> > > Ian
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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)
> > > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> > >
> > >
>
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 05:17:53 GMT

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