- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:25:02 +0000
- To: "Marco Colombetti" <colombet@elet.polimi.it>
- Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
On 26 Mar 2008, at 17:00, Marco Colombetti wrote: > I’m kind of dissatisfied with the use of the terms “assertion” and > “declaration” in the OWL literature. Some pointers to where this happens would be helpful. I've not noticed these. > Axioms like DisjointClasses(C,D) are often called “class > assertions”, and axioms like FunctionalObjectProperty(P) are called > “(object) property assertions”. I wouldn't do that. I'd call them "class axioms" and "property axioms". (I wouldn't *want* to do that...perhaps I've slipped somewhere.) It's relatively harmless since they are declarative sentences typically presented in an assertional voice. But they are TBox and RBox axioms, not ABox :) > Unfortunately, also Abox assertions like ClassAssertion(a C) are > called “class assertion”s, and Abox assertions like > ObjectPropertyAssertion(P a b) are called (object) “property > assertions”. Yeah, that's ok by me. > The former type of assertions are sometimes called “declarations”, Where? That's evil. > but unfortunately OWL has a different notion of declaration, > likeDeclaration(OWLClass(A)). And "declaration" for tbox axioms is just *wrong* :) > Any suggestion on how to call axioms like DisjointClasses(C,D) and > FunctionalObjectProperty(P) without creating confusion? "Class axioms" and "Property axioms" and use ClassAssertion and PropertyAssertion for the abox statements. Or TBox and RBox in the right contexts. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2008 19:23:29 UTC