Re: Are NegativeObjectPropertyAssertions really just syntactic sugar in OWL2?

I am not aware of a way to say this in OWL1. If there is, it may be highly
awkward and ugly.  Good question.

Michael

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:59 PM, Heiko Paulheim <paulheim@ke.tu-darmstadt.de
> wrote:

>  Dear OWL experts,
>
> the W3C document about new features in OWL 2 states that
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertations are syntactic sugar in OWL 2 [1]. From my
> understanding, "syntactic sugar" means that they can be expressed in OWL 1
> as well, but only in a more verbose fashion.
>
> However, I cannot see how I could express the example below, used in [1],
> in OWL 1. Which point am I missing here?
>
> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion( *:livesIn* *:ThisPatient* *:IleDeFrance*)
> <=>
> _:x rdf:type owl:NegativePropertyAssertion.
> _:x owl:sourceIndividual :ThisPatient.
> _:x owl:assertionProperty :livesIn.
> _:x owl:targetIndividual :IleDeFrance.
>
> Best,
> Heiko.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/
>
>
> --
> Dr. Heiko Paulheim
> Knowledge Engineering Group
> Technische Universität Darmstadt
> Phone: +49 6151 16 6634
> Fax:   +49 6151 16 5482http://www.ke.tu-darmstadt.de/staff/heiko-paulheim
>
>


-- 
Michael Uschold, PhD
   Senior Ontology Consultant, Semantic Arts
   LinkedIn: http://tr.im/limfu
   Skype, Twitter: UscholdM