- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 23:03:47 -0600
- To: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
>I concur with Jeff. We make heavy use of "same" statements in our >applications, and forcing the use of sameIndividualAs, although >technically correct, is bound to confuse many users. I also agree. I can't help noting that people have been using '=' very successfully for some time, and that its a lot easier to type than any of the alternatives. Pat >Guus > > >Jeff Heflin wrote: >>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/ >>>> >>> >> >> > >-- >A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam >http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes s.pam@ai.uwf.edu for spam
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 00:03:29 UTC