Re: PROPOSAL to close issue 4.6 [was Re: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo]

I could live with this, but would be much happier if we also had a
generic sameAs property that could be used in place of the three longer
named properties. I know this has come up before. Note, if someone used
sameAs between a property and a class in OWL/DL, this would be no
different than if they declared the same ID to be of both type Class and
Property. 

Jeff


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> Given that Dan appears to like the solution in the new semantics document,
> I PROPOSE that the working group CLOSE Issue 4.6 EquivalentTo, with the
> following wording:
> 
> daml:equivalentTo has had problems in its interpretation, particularly with
> respect to its relationship to daml:sameClassAs, daml:samePropertyAs, and
> daml:sameIndividual.  A general equivalentTo also has problems in OWL/DL,
> as it violates the separation between classes, properties, and individuals.
> Therefore, OWL will not have an equivalentTo.
> 
> Note: In OWL/DL, the effect of equivalentTo can be obtained by
> owl:sameClassAs for classes, owl:samePropertyAs for properties, and
> owl:sameIndividualAs for individuals.  In OWL/Full, owl:sameIndividualAs
> has same effect that daml:equivalentTo was intended to have.
> 
> The new semantics document is compatible with this proposal.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> 
> From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
> Subject: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo
> Date: 25 Oct 2002 17:01:40 -0500
> 
> >
> > The writing on semantics seems to be coming along great...
> >
> > I noticed what looks like an inconsistency between
> > the "stance on issues" take on 4.6...
> >
> > ========
> > http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/semantics.html#1.2
> >
> > #  The document does not have a construct (like daml:equivalentTo) for
> > asserting that a name is the same as another name, assuming that issue
> > 4.6 will be resolved against including this feature in OWL.
> > ========
> >
> > and an actual spec for that very feature:
> >
> > ====
> > excerpt from
> > http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/temp/owl/rdfs.html
> >
> > Some OWL properties have iff characterizations
> >
> > If E is then <x,y> \in EXTI(SI(E)) iff
> >
> > owl:sameIndividualAs x = y
> > ====
> >
> > I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.
> >
> > If you have a moment to confirm, or to explain why
> > it's not, I'd appreciate it.
> >
> > --
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> >

Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 14:54:23 UTC