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

Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 14:29:05 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
cc: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0209021425030.22715-100000@tux.w3.org>

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> Subject: Re: TEST: Functional and InverseFunctional tests for approval
> Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 08:01:44 +0200
>
> >
> > Peter I am very sorry but I missed your earlier contentful message about
> > these test cases:
> >
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Aug/0226.html
> >
> > In light of that, I overreacted to your continued opposition to these test
> > cases at the telecon, sorry.
> >
> > I reply to  that message here.
> >
> >
> > >> DESCRIPTION
> > >>
> > >>  If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty,
> > >>  and a resource has prop arcs pointing to two
> > >>  different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs denote the
> > >>  same resource, and hence each have the same properties.
> >
> > Peter:
> > >This description mixes syntax and semantics, and thus need to be rewritten.
> >
> > In defence of the comment, I don't think the mixing introduces difficulties
> > of understanding; but I agree with you on stylistic grounds.
>
> It took me longer that it should have to understand just what was supposed
> to happen here, so, for me at least, the mixing introduced difficulties of
> understanding.
>
> > It would have been helpful if you had suggested alternative text.
> >
> > How about:
> > [[
> > If prop is an owl:FunctionalProperty,
> > then any resource has at most one prop value.
> > Thus if a single URIref is described with
> > two different prop arcs with objects which
> > have two different URIrefs, then those two URIrefs
> > denote the same resource; and hence each have the
> > same properties.
> > ]]
> >
> > It's longer, is the extra length necessary?
> > Is it clearer?
>
> This is clearer, to me at least.  However I would prefer something like
>
> If prop belongs to owl:FunctionalProperty
> and thing is an OWL individual with two outgoing prop arcs,
> then the objects of these arcs have the same denotation.

FWIW this wording seems to better support the case where one or both of
the property values are represented as a blank (anonymous) node, rather than
with a URIRef.

Dan



-- 
mailto:danbri@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 14:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT