Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-27 and "antisymmetric" vs. "asymmetric" object properties

Oops.  Good catch.  I thought that I had fixed that.

In any case, I made the change to asymmetric.

As you say, further dicussion on the "best" name should be put into
another issue.  The best way to proceed would be to have your rep on the
WG raise the issue.

peter



From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: [OWLWG-COMMENT] ISSUE-27 and "antisymmetric" vs. "asymmetric" object properties
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:02:51 +0100

> [Public comment to OWL-WG discussion on WG's issue tracker:
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/27
> also sending to involved WG members]
> 
> Hi, Peter!
> 
> The now closed issue 27 contains two comments, which you attached to the
> issue some weeks before it was closed:
> 
> * COMMENT 1:
> 
>   "2007-10-26 15:55:48: I think that I got all the typos in SS&FS.
> 
>   The message notes one typo in Semantics that is still to be done.
> 
>   Ah, and I can see that the "semantics" document still uses
>   "AntisymmetricObjectProperty", while we had already discussed that this
>   naming should be changed into "AsymmetricObjectProperty", see thread
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/0235.html>.
> 
>   [Peter Patel-Schneider]"
> 
> * COMMENT 2:
> 
>   "2007-11-02 10:30:43: I fixed the last two typos in this list 
>   (one in Semantics, one in Syntax).
>   [Peter Patel-Schneider]"
> 
> 
> So this sounds to me as if the change has been performed in the semantics
> draft. But when I look into the current draft of the semantics document in
> the Wiki at
> 
>  
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics#Model-Theoretic_Semantics_for_OWL
> _1.1>
> 
> table 4 still contains the old entry:
> 
>    | AntisymmetricObjectProperty(R) | ...	|
> 
> so I cannot see any changes.
> 
> 
> Btw, I think that this is a bit more than just a trivial typo (compared with
> the other bugs in issue 27, which really are all trivial). While I am
> convinced that it should really be called 
> 
>   "AsymmetricObjectProperty"
> 
> I remember that Boris noted in our discussion at that time that the word
> "antisymmetric" was already used in the basic literature on which the
> semantics draft depends, see:
> 
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/0205.html
> 
> So I suggest that this issue should be raised as a separate issue, to let
> the WG know that there has actually been some discussion about this naming
> topic. Even if the issue gets closed very soon after, it might be of some
> interest especially to the DL experts within the WG that the SROIQ paper
> contains the same naming problem.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
> 
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus

Received on Saturday, 24 November 2007 12:54:03 UTC