- From: Joshua TAYLOR <tayloj@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:46:25 -0500
- To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Hello, [I'm aware that the official period for last call comments has passed, but was encouraged to send this along anyhow.] In the "New Features and Rationale" draft [1], Section 2.1.3. F3 describes Negative[Object,Data]PropertyAssertion as syntactic sugar. These are, indeed, just shorthand, since "not(R(a,b))" can be rewritten as "a is in the class of elements all of whose Rs are from the complement of the singleton class {b}". Yet the introduction to 2.1.3 F3 reads: "While OWL 1 provides means to assert values of a property for an individual, asserting that a property has not some values is impossible. This requires the ability to assert facts about an individual stating property values that it does not have." At first I thought that perhaps the elements of enumerated classes excluded literals (and so it would have been NegativeDataPropertyAssertion impossible), but was then informed that enumerated classes can contain literals, so neither NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion nor NegativeDataPropertyAssertion are impossible. On a smaller note, I noticed a few typos in this and surrounding areas. particularly, "shortand" for "shorthand", and "satements" (2.1.2 F2, and 2.1.3 F3) for "statements" (2.1.1 F1). //JT [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-new-features-20081202/ - This is also the "latest version" at the time of writing. -- Joshua Taylor tayloj@cs.rpi.edu
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 15:52:33 UTC