Re: PROPOSAL to close issue 4.6 [was Re: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo]

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 15:06:48 +0100
Message-ID: <3DC7D078.7020300@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

I concur with Jeff. We make heavy use of "same" statements in our
applications, and forcing the use of sameIndividualAs, although
technically correct, is bound to confuse many users.
Guus

Jeff Heflin wrote:
> I could live with this, but would be much happier if we also had a
> generic sameAs property that could be used in place of the three longer
> named properties. I know this has come up before. Note, if someone used
> sameAs between a property and a class in OWL/DL, this would be no
> different than if they declared the same ID to be of both type Class and
> Property.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
>
>>Given that Dan appears to like the solution in the new semantics document,
>>I PROPOSE that the working group CLOSE Issue 4.6 EquivalentTo, with the
>>following wording:
>>
>>daml:equivalentTo has had problems in its interpretation, particularly with
>>respect to its relationship to daml:sameClassAs, daml:samePropertyAs, and
>>daml:sameIndividual.  A general equivalentTo also has problems in OWL/DL,
>>as it violates the separation between classes, properties, and individuals.
>>Therefore, OWL will not have an equivalentTo.
>>
>>Note: In OWL/DL, the effect of equivalentTo can be obtained by
>>owl:sameClassAs for classes, owl:samePropertyAs for properties, and
>>owl:sameIndividualAs for individuals.  In OWL/Full, owl:sameIndividualAs
>>has same effect that daml:equivalentTo was intended to have.
>>
>>The new semantics document is compatible with this proposal.
>>
>>Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>>Bell Labs Research
>>
>>From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
>>Subject: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo
>>Date: 25 Oct 2002 17:01:40 -0500
>>
>>
>>>The writing on semantics seems to be coming along great...
>>>
>>>I noticed what looks like an inconsistency between
>>>the "stance on issues" take on 4.6...
>>>
>>>========
>>>http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/semantics.html#1.2
>>>
>>>#  The document does not have a construct (like daml:equivalentTo) for
>>>asserting that a name is the same as another name, assuming that issue
>>>4.6 will be resolved against including this feature in OWL.
>>>========
>>>
>>>and an actual spec for that very feature:
>>>
>>>====
>>>excerpt from
>>>http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/rdfs.html
>>>
>>>Some OWL properties have iff characterizations
>>>
>>>If E is then <x,y> \in EXTI(SI(E)) iff
>>>
>>>owl:sameIndividualAs x = y
>>>====
>>>
>>>I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.
>>>
>>>If you have a moment to confirm, or to explain why
>>>it's not, I'd appreciate it.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>>>
>>
>
>

--
A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam
http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html

Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 09:11:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT