- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 07:59:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> Subject: ISSUE 5.18 Unique Names Assumption Support in OWL Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 23:04:07 +0200 > > Now that all issues are open I'm still feeling > a bit hesitant w.r.t. issue 5.18 > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.18-Unique-Names-Assumption-Support-in-OWL > but Frank gave me courage. > I gathered some experience with something like > owl:UniqueNames (just gave it some name). > Let's take an example (which is somewhat crossing > our charter borders, but it's all I have) > at http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom > It is stated there that the gedcom# namespace > is an owl:UniqueNames meaning that all names in > that space are actually owl:differentIndividualFrom > eachother, e.g. all the :... ones in > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-facts.n3 > That is achieved with an inference rule such as > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/owl-rules#rule10d1 > which implies the ?x owl:differentIndividualFrom ?y > (instead of giving an order of faculty(n) facts). Unfortunately this rule won't (or, at least, shouldn't) do anything. It says that if x /= y then x and y are different individuals. Of course, the whole problem is determining whether x is indeed not equal to y. The rule also appears to be doing something illegal with URI references in its use of log:racine. On looking at http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/log.n3 I realize that the intended meanings of the resources in the log: namespace are inherently broken. For example, log:notEqualTo works on the identifier (URI (reference)) of its arguments, something completely outside the bounds of standard logic. This brings up a serious problem with the descriptions of CWM. Sean Palmer states that CWM is, in some sense, a forward chaining first-order predicate logic inference engine. However, if CWM is a reasoner over some logic, then the logic is a highly unusual intensional logic, and not any standard first-order logic. > One can see such inferences in > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-proof.n3 > which is some proof argument for > http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/gedcom-query.n3 > -- , > Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2002 07:59:37 UTC