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

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:03:47 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b03b9efa44eed64@[65.217.30.130]>
To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>


>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.

I also agree. I can't help noting that people have been using '='
very successfully for some time, and that its a lot easier to type
than any of the alternatives.

Pat

>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

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 00:03:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC