RE: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81

Hello,

What do you mean exactly with "transformed into equivalent class assertion"?

I believe that OWL 1.1 DL should explicitly support negative property assertions at the functional-style and structural level:
omitting a construct just because RDF cannot deal with it easily sets a really bad precedent.

I do believe, however, that such a translation would be acceptable at the level of RDF mapping. We can think of whether we can use
hints such as the one that you suggest below to enable round-tripping. Even without round-tripping, I believe that such a solution
would be acceptable in practice: saving a negative object property assertion into RDF and reading it back would thus give you a
class assertion that has an equivalent semantics. 

Regards,

	Boris


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 23 March 2008 14:48
> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG
> Subject: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81
> 
> 
> To resolve this issue I propose that NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion
> be transformed into the equivalent class assertion. In order to
> support tools that wish to preserve the presentation of this axiom as
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion we use the axiom annotation mechanism
> with a new annotation property: syntaxHint.  syntaxHint would be
> considered optional - not all tools need serialize using it, nor all
> tool pay attention to it.
> 
> So
> 
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(hasMother John Mary)
> 
> Is translated in to
> 
> ClassAssertion(
>    Annotation(syntaxHint NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion)
>    John ObjectAllValuesFrom(hasMother ObjectComplementOf(ObjectOneOf
> (Mary))))
> 
> 
> -Alan
> 
> meta: ISSUE-103

Received on Sunday, 23 March 2008 15:52:56 UTC