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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 14:30:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021031.143038.31472609.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


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 I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.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

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:30:49 GMT

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