Re: ISSUE 5.18 Unique Names Assumption Support in OWL (cwm docs)

At 11:31 AM -0500 10/24/02, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 08:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>[...]
>>  > Not all descriptions of cwm have this problem.
>>
>>  But this description is, in some sense, the authoritative one.  The home
>>  page for CWM points to it as a more up to date description of CWM than the
>>  CWM home page.
>
>Oops; I didn't realize which page you were talking about.
>Yes, that needs to be fixed.
>
>
>--
>Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Now that that is done, can I rule discussion of whether cwm is broken 
out of scope (rdf-logic a wonderful place for that discussion)

meanwhile, back to the issue of Unique names assumption.

I took an action to move this forward.  I have looked at a lot of 
options, talked to a lot of people, and have come to the hypothesis 
that we should leae things as they are -- we provide 
owl:differentIndividualFrom and don't provide anything else.

I suggest that doing something else should be left to presentation -- 
that is, we could  let implementors provide syntactic sugar (applying 
it to a whole document or a set of terms) and let our successors 
determine which of these is the "correct" one.   We would thus handle 
this as we did the cardinality stuff - have a pointer to a discussion 
that describes briefly what the UNA is, why our mechanism solves it, 
and suggest that this is a presentation issue

The unimaginable scope of all the things that could happen on the web 
with respect to uniquenames is beyond me, and I think beyond the 
scope of this group to come up with a definitive answer at this time.

  Can we live with something like this?

  -JH

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  240-731-3822 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 11:36:52 UTC