- From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:47:45 -0400
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi, After some further discussions, I am happy to say that all the comments I raised have been addressed by Michael. Cheers, Zhe > Hi Michael, >>> Hmmm. When an owl user talks about individual, he/she probably means >>> those x in his/her ontology >>> such that x type owl:Thing holds. Here IR is about the interpreted >>> domain and we call elements of IR individuals. >>> Isn't it a bit confusing? >>> >> >> Under the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, just as for the original version, >> the term "individual" refers to the elements of the domain of an >> OWL 2 Full interpretation. In this way the term is used several times >> in the Introduction section, as well as in Section 4. There is no other >> meaning of the term "individual" as far as the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics >> is concerned. >> >> Concerning "owl:Thing" and "IR": owl:Thing actually represents IR aka >> the whole domain: >> >> ICEXT(I(owl:Thing)) = IR . >> > This probably is not a big deal either way. To draw an analogy, I cut > & paste the following from Direct semantics. If the word "element" is > replaced with "individual", it reads a bit strange. > > * /? ^I / is the /individual interpretation function/ that assigns > to each individual /a ? V_I / an element /(a)^I / ? /?_I /. > > >> >>> I don't quite understand it. The same kind of argument applies to the >>> pair of owl:complementOf and owl:disjointWith, right? >>> >> >> No. Table 3 does /not/ specify the /exact/ property extension >> for these two properties, but only sais that their property extensions >> are /subsets/ of IC x IC. This is much less specific than in the case >> of owl:topObjectProperty, which sais "= IR x IR". The subset relationship >> can actually be expressed by two axiomatic triples with rdfs:domain and >> rdfs:range, the "=" relationship cannot. >> >> > I see it now ;) Thanks, > > Zhe >
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:48:29 UTC