W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 14:11:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030208.141109.60036463.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jos.deroo@agfa.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Subject: Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 01:06:32 +0100

[...]

> Right, I was misreading, it is indeed
> [[
> For Individual constructs the situation is a bit different.  Here the
> ``extension'' of the Individual construct is indeed a subset of set of
> domain elements that have the correct annotations.  However, this is
> precisely what is needed for Individual constructs with no name, and it
> works just as well for Individual constructs that provide a name.
> ]]
> 
> but then that would mean that to have a non empty individual
> all appropriate annotations have to in the KB, right?

It means that to satisfy

Individual(annotation(x y)  annotation(x z) type(Person))

there has to be annotation triples of the form <a,I(x),I(y)><a,I(x),I(y)>
and <a,I(x),I(z)> for some a.

> > > On the other hand, the so called annotation "triples"
> > > (NOT to confuse with RDF triples) are so
> > > weak that no entailement other than belonging to A
> > > can be done with them (seems to me).
> >
> > Well, this was the entire idea.
> 
> Assuming that is the idea, then when such
> triples are exchanged in RDF/XML how can
> we ever know that they are special?

You wouldn't have to.
 
> I also guess that sameAs would apply to
> their URIreference/dataLiteral arguments.

The elements of the triples are elements of the domain of discourse, and
the arguments of the ontology constructs are run through the denotation
function, so 

	Individual(john annotation(hi john))
	Individual(jack)
	SameIndividual(john jack)

would entail

	Individual(john annotation(hi jack))

[...]

peter
Received on Saturday, 8 February 2003 14:11:21 GMT

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