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

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 I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.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 Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:30:49 UTC