- From: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:33:43 +0100
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
- Cc: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <b0ed1d660901211533x155d806ax902fbe46ff5308c2@mail.gmail.com>
2009/1/22 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.manchester.ac.uk> > I don't understand this as a reply to my message or my action. nothing to do with you. the goal was to synthetize/homogenize the documentation for the reply to JH1 comment Christine > > On 21 Jan 2009, at 23:00, Christine Golbreich wrote: > > Regarding documentation related to JH1 : >> >> 1) I can see that Boris had already extensively documented the 'named' >> issue in the Syntax and added an example of non inference with no named >> instance. The sentence below might be merged/moved to it. >> > > ? My sentences is in the syntax. > > 2) >> - the NF&R has already asserted that a haskey axiom only concerns named >> instances of a class C as well: >> "A HasKey axiom states that each named instance of a class is uniquely >> identified by a (data or object) property or a set of properties" >> - The example also stresses that a haskey axiom does not state that each >> instance of the class C has at least one value for the key property >> - As proposed at last TC, I have now extended the comment of the example >> in adding the sentence "The inference that each patient who has a >> a:hasWaitingListN belongs to the class a:RegisteredPatient cannot be drawn " >> so as to make it clear that the inference of belonging to the class cannot >> be drawn, which was, if I remember correctly, the initial point of the >> discussion. >> > > Again, nothing to do with my action. > > However, it misses the point. The commenter understood the semantics, just > didn't see the rationale. The point of putting something in the NF&R is to, > well, you know, document the rationale. not only, an introduction that helps to grasp the new features as well > > > 3) Moreover there is also an addition done by Michael in RDF-Based Sem. >> in section 5.14 >> "Keys provide an alternative to inverse functional properties (see Table >> 5.13). They allow for defining a property as a key local to a given class: >> the specified property will have the features of a key only for individuals >> within the class, and no assumption is made about individuals external to >> the class, or for which it is unknown whether they are instances of the >> class. Further, it is possible to define "compound keys", i.e. several >> properties can be combined into a single key applicable to composite values. >> >> > Again, nothing to do with my action. > > Again, this merely documents but does not give the rationale. > > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Christine
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2009 23:34:19 UTC