W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: ISSUE-83 (Vipul): Property Chain Axiom: P1 o P2 => P2 o P1 (really ISSUE-64)?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:35:09 +0000
Message-Id: <2E1ABB84-60FD-471F-AD58-95C4969AA130@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, Vipul Kashyap <VKASHYAP1@PARTNERS.ORG>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

On Dec 2, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> Isn't this already permitted due to the resolution of issue 64?
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/64

No. That just changes the serialization of exisiting chain axioms. It  
doesn't introduce new axioms though it does *allow* for new classes  
of axioms e.g.,:

"""In OWL 1.1 Full one could use this everywhere, and not just in the  

Note the "could".

> (I added a note  to the issue clarifying what the resolution was  
> and when it was resolved)
> -Alan
> On Dec 2, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Kashyap, Vipul wrote:
>> It is possible to extend the spec. to address this?

It's possible to extend the spec. in any number of ways. The question  
is whether anyone will implement it.

Qua implementor, I would strongly prefer that such an extension go  
under a rule extension such as SWRL. But I'll also say that I don't  
know how to implement SWRL (or this extension) in a reasonable way.

I would suggest lobbying your favorite implementors for such a  
feature *before* trying to add it to the spec. Adding to the spec  
doesn't, after all, magically make it available to you.

Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 08:35:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:41 UTC