W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

Re: Issue-114

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 12:26:02 -0400
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <773FC3A0-0901-47BA-90C9-73DF9F51DACC@gmail.com>
To: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>

OK, it's clear now that there are legitimate ways in which one could  
consider properties and classes to denote, in some way, the same  
thing. What I'm missing is the purpose of the punning or put another  
way, the intended semantics.

In the case of class/instance punning there are two things I am aware  

1) The OWL DL "missing entailment"  x sameAs y => x equivalentClass y
2) The use of the pun for the purpose of making queries, in, e.g.  

Are there analogous situations for the class/property? Could the  
concrete benefit of punning in this case be made explicit? Is it a  
matter of documentation? Should there be an entailment x  
equivalentProperty y <=> x equivalentClass y? What becomes easier if  
the property and class are named the same in such cases?

Evan, would it be possible to share a model which uses this construct  
so we can see how it plays out?


On Jul 1, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Evan Wallace wrote:

> As I said when we discussed this in January, combining properties  
> and classes is common in
> some models.  UML supports this with the Association Class  
> construct, and I saw this construct
> used liberally in models at last week's OMG meeting.  It is also  
> true that it is common to encounter
> the problem of integrating models after the fact that have made  
> different design choices leading
> to a need to reconcile the use of both classes and properties for  
> the same concept.   As long as
> we are going to include punning in the OWL2 language, then we should  
> have a darn good reason if
> we are not going to support class-property punning.
> -Evan
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2008 16:26:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC