RE: A proposal for introducing anonymous individuals into OWL 1.1 functional-style syntax

Hello,

The weaker semantics would mean that this would not be entailed in OWL 1.0 DL; however, it would be entailed in OWL 1.1 Full.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 14 February 2008 15:40
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: Re: A proposal for introducing anonymous individuals into OWL 1.1 functional-style syntax
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
>  > Please let us know how you feel about this proposal.
> 
> Cautiously optimistic!
> 
> 
> > Finally, we would extend the semantics document to treat anonymous
> > individuals in exactly the same way as this is done in SPARQL. This would give
>  > us a slightly weaker semantics than what is currently
> > available in OWL (1.0) Full.
> 
> 
> Please can you give an example illustrating the difference?
> 
> I had thought that in some sense (well a model-theoretic sense) SPARQL
> is largely semantic-free, i.e. it is best thought of as a syntactic
> algebra rather than a model theory ....
> 
> An example I wondered about would be if we set up a class Person, and a
> property parent with domain and range Person; and require each Person to
> have at least one parent, and have <fred> as a Person, is soemthing like
> the following entailed?
> 
> <fred> parent _:a .
> _:a parent _:b .
> _:b parent _:c .
> _:c parent _:d .
> 
> i.e. the great great grandfather entailment?
> 
> Jeremy
>

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2008 15:59:02 UTC