- From: Carsten Lutz <clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de>
- Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:47:58 +0100 (CET)
- To: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Giorgos Stoilos wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Carsten Lutz [mailto:clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de] >> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:29 PM >> To: Giorgos Stoilos >> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org >> Subject: RE: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals >> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Giorgos Stoilos wrote: >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- >> request@w3.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Carsten Lutz >>>> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:21 PM >>>> To: gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr >>>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org >>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-3: REPORTED: Lack of anonymous individuals >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hmmm. Interesting, but as it says this is a simulation of the >> universal >>>>> role. And apparently a reflexive, symmetric and transitive super-role >>>> does >>>>> not give you a total relation (as you said in your original mail). >> Does >>>> this >>>>> have any impact on your technique on representing anonymous >> individuals? >>>> >>>> No. The representation I mentioned only relies on having the universal >>>> role available in existential and universal quantifiers. SROIQ has >> this. >>>> On top of this, all that matters is that the algorithm is correct, but >>>> not what precisely it does internally. >>>> >>> >>> Right. If we are talking about the super-role (reflexive, transitive, >>> symmetric and super-role of every role) and not the top or totally >> ordered >>> role, then I believe everything is fine. After all, this role was used >> in >>> internalization for quite sometime. >> >> Look. The algorithm we are talking about consists of two parts: first, >> reduce away the universal role and some other stuff; second, use the >> tableau. This is *ONE* algorithm, i.e., that these are *two* steps is >> internal to the algorithm and we don't have to care. The (overall!) >> algorithm is for SROIQ, and it is correct. SROIQ has the true >> universal role. Regarding the stuff with the anonymous individuals, >> which is completely *outside* the algorithm, you can thus forget about >> the super-role stuff, which is *inside* the algorithm. > > I am aware of that. > > I think there is a misunderstanding. In your original mail you spoke about a > *total* role, which is (as far as I know) different than the *top* role, > which SROIQ does whatever it wants with it. I was referring to what is called the "universal role" in the SROIQ paper. It is total. To this role, my above explanation applies. greetings, Carsten -- * Carsten Lutz, Institut f"ur Theoretische Informatik, TU Dresden * * Office phone:++49 351 46339171 mailto:lutz@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de *
Received on Friday, 9 November 2007 11:48:17 UTC