# 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>


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 I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:48 UTC