Re: PROPOSAL to close issue 4.6

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL to close issue 4.6 [was Re: SEM: peeking at approach to 4.6 EquivalentTo]
> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 14:54:03 -0500
> 
> > 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
> 
> What is the meaning of this property going to be in the abstract syntax and
> in the n-triples syntax, both for OWL/DL and OWL/Full?
> 
> peter

I would expect that the meaning would be conditional:

If E is owl:sameAs the <x,y> IN EXT(S(E)) iff
	1) if x,y IN IOC then CEXT(x)=CEXT(y)
	2) if x,y IN IOP then EXT(x)=EXT(y)
	3) if x,y IN IOT then x=y

In OWL/DL the three sets are disjoint, so only one of the conditions
could hold. There are some combinations (e.g, x IN IOC and y IN IOP)
which are not defined, but this no different than the meaning of (say)
sameClassAs if one argument is not a class.

In OWL/Full multiple conditions could be true at the same time,
resulting in multiple consequences. Also, I think condition 3 has to
hold (since all resources are in IOT).

Jeff

Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 17:27:27 UTC