- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2007 12:51:49 +0000
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
This seems a reasonable compromise to me. In fact ISSUE-3 is relatively trivial, because we can already capture OWL 1.0 style "tree like" cases using class assertions with nominals. E.g., we can assert that Dave is a friend of a friend of John using a subClass axiom: subClassOf( ObjectOneOf(Dave) ObjectSomeValuesFrom(isFriendOf ObjectSomeValuesFrom(isFriendOf ObjectOneOf(John)))) The intervening "anonymous" friend has the existential semantics. Ian On 9 Nov 2007, at 14:09, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > Somewhere in the midsts of this thread ... > > Boris wrote: > [[ > Imagine you have an ABox A containing the following assertions: > > (1) hor(_:1,_:2) > (2) ver(_:2,_:3) > (3) ver(_:1,_:4) > (4) hor(_:4,_:5) > (5) _:3 != _:5 > > ]] > etc. > > I find the message compelling. > > As one of the RFC Core WG who originally raised our ISSUE-46, I > would be satisfied with allowing anonymous individuals in the tree > like fashion (ISSUE-3) and disallowing them in the general position > (ISSUE-46). > > Personally, I have enough information to be able to vote for > closing both issues as above. > > I haven't thought through your alternative of skolemized semantics > throughout ... my gut feel is negative. > > Given that ISSUE 46 was originally raised by RDF Core, I would > suggest passing any proposal to close it, and a rationale (e.g. > Boris's message) in front of Pat Hayes - and assuming he is happy, > notifying semantic web interest, noting that I and Pat, are > satisfied would close the procedural loop. Both of these could be > done as an action after a decision to close the issue - with the > issue in a pending-close state for a short time. > > Jeremy > >
Received on Saturday, 10 November 2007 12:52:08 UTC