- From: Boris Motik <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:11:12 -0000
- To: "'Evren Sirin'" <evren@clarkparsia.com>, <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Hello, You are right; this is a kind of a bug. Namely, we have followed the SROIQ paper, in which they say "antisymmetric", but the definition of the semantics is exactly as in OWL 1.1. Probably we should change the spec to call such properties asymmetric instead of antisymmetric. Sincerely yours, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] > On Behalf Of Evren Sirin > Sent: 07 March 2007 21:16 > To: public-owl-dev@w3.org > Subject: Semantics of antisymmetric properties > > > The standard definition of antisymmetry is "R(x,y) and R(y,x) implies > x=y". In OWL 1.1 semantics document, we have the definition "( x , y ) > in RIpo implies ( y , x ) is not in RIpo" which is not the same > definition and suggests that antisymmetric properties are irreflexive > (because x could be equivalent to y and it is not allowed yb this > definition). Is this a bug in the definition? > > Regards, > Evren
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2007 09:12:02 UTC