Re: 4.5 InverseOf: a test case for mapping between ontologies

The issue states:
  InverseOf is a highly used (some say misused) feature of DAML+OIL. The 
  OWL-Full proposal left it out, because of some worries on the part of some 
  participants that it caused some logical problems for users.  Other people 
  argue it is an important expression in the mapping between ontologies.

Dan Connolly wrote:
>So I propose to close this issue
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#4.5-InverseOf
>by approving this test case and the
>existing specification of inverseOf:
>
>"if the pair (x,y) is an instance of P, than the pair (y,x) is an
>instance of the named property."

I propose that we not close any issues without a full discussion
of problems motivating their raising.  Since the "logical problems for 
users" are not enumerated in the issue document, someone needs to 
describe them for us so we can judge if Dan's uncompelling example 
justifies ignoring them.  If no logical problems can be described
or shown by example, then I propose that we close the issue on the 
basis that there is no demonstrable problem with the language
feature: inverseOf.

Also, if the above quoted text is a specification, then what is P and 
where is the the object property named.  Suggest that the final OWL
specification should include a proper EBNF syntax specification.

>I think inverseOf is quite useful for mapping
>between ontologies; here's
>an example of how I understand it to work:
>
>premise:
>
> :joe my:hasBrother :bob.

A completely asymmetric property such as hasParent would make a better 
example for inverseOf.

>
> my:hasBrother ont:inverseOf your:isBrotherOf.
>
>conclusion:
>
>
>  :bob your:isBrotherOf :joe.


Evan K. Wallace
Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
ewallace@nist.gov

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 15:52:20 UTC