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

Re: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 19:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20021025.195113.125117298.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

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
> ====

Well the old equivalentTo intended meaning also had an explicit (or
implicit) connotation that x and y were the same class and the same
property. 

> I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.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.

I would certainly be happy if sameIndividualAs took over from
equivalentTo.  However, I do believe that it is a change from the
DAML+OIL situation.

> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 

peter
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 19:51:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT