- From: Evan Wallace <ewallace@cme.nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:51:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
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