Re: Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty

On June 6, Libby Miller writes:
> 
> 
> Ian, could you expand on that a little? I'm not sure I get it.

Libby,

Sorry, I was mixing up unambiguous with uniquelyDefining - a mistake
anyone could make (better names PLEASE!) - it never occurred to me that
we might be considering dispensing with functional properties, given
their obvious utility.

With respect to uniquelyDefining, the point is that asserting that P
is a uniquelyDefining property can be viewed as syntactic sugar for
stating that (inverse P) is an unambiguous property. So
uniquelyDefining and inverse are connected (to some extent).

Ian

> 
> Jim: Dan Brickley has also provided some motivating examples if it would
> help. I also did a paper for XMLEurope which discussed some possible
> uses of this property:
> 
> http://ilrt.org/discovery/2002/03/skical-daml/
> 
> Libby
> 
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 
> >
> > On May 29, Jim Hendler writes:
> > >
> > > Issue 3.4 - daml:UnambiguousProperty
> > >
> > >   Proposal - CLOSE THIS ISSUE
> > >
> > >    The issue here was that the requirements document didn't motivate
> > > this language feature.  However, no one has advocated its removal and
> > > there does seem to be consensus it is a desirable feature.  It is
> > > provided for in DAML+OIL and will be provided in OWL.
> >
> >
> > This issue may be tied to the INVERSE issue. UnambiguousProperty
> > really means functionality w.r.t. the inverse property. If we no
> > longer support inverse, then it seems a little strange to be able to
> > assert its functionality.
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
> > > Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
> > > Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
> > > Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
> > > http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
> >
> >

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 10:37:47 UTC