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

RE: DTTF: List Ontology test case

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:06:38 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDAEOMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Peter (stating his false beliefs about Jeremy):
> > > Well, I don't think that you get want you need out of this
> sort of thing.


Peter again:
> So, for DAML+OIL lists to behave as expected, there needs to be a
> *syntactic* restriction on them, not a *semantic* one, which is all that
> can be stated in DAML+OIL.
>

hmm, that's not my expectations.


e.g.

if lists are syntactic then

<daml:UniqueProperty rdf:about="http://example.org/#uniq"/>
<rdf:Description rdf:about="#foo">
<eg:uniq rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#member/>
</eg:uniq>
<eg:uniq rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#member/>
</eg:uniq>
</rdf:Description>


is contradictory and/or meaningless because the two lists are required to
be semantically the same thing by the unicity constraint, but they are not
(even though they are identical things - this identity is a semantic
condition that could be defined with say graph isomorphism).


It seems to me that we have no mechanism in any semantic web technology to
specify syntactic constraints on the graph; and so introducing one seems
high cost.

I would like to have a better understanding of the benefits of a syntactic
mechanism that appears to me to merely duplicate semantic mechanisms that
already exist.


Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 10:07:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:49 GMT