- From: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 11:12:54 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, hendler@cs.rpi.edu, public-owl-wg@w3.org
...sorry for the late reply: I thought that this feature is harmless provided we treat it as follows: say, we have that properties p1,..., p7 are keys for a class C. Then, whenever we find two individuals explicitly known in the ontology, say x and y, that coincide on their known values for p1, and p2 and ... p7, then we infer that x and y are identical. We could implement this feature with this semantics via a translation into DL-safe rules, which some of the reasoners already implement. Cheers, Uli On 3 Dec 2007, at 09:32, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> In any case, there should probably be some explanation of why the >> issue >> is not being considered, and "no implementions" sounds acceptable >> to me. > > I had hoped for a little bit more - four years ago when we > postponed this, we were told that work was being done in the area. > > This feature is a feature that many of HP's users would like, and > which HP would be likely to support (in an OWL Full sort of way) if > there was an appropriate construct. > > I note that relational databases have routinely supported a similar > functionality for decades. > > So - please could someone summarize the current state of research > on this issue? > > thanks > > Jeremy > > > >
Received on Monday, 3 December 2007 11:13:57 UTC