W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > October 2002

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

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:16:03 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: connolly@w3.org, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF4D3B7A4B.B3DB6ACE-ONC1256C63.007F9F60-C1256C63.007FD4EF@agfa.be>

we find that a good proposal

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

                    "Peter F.                                                                                           
                    Patel-Schneider"          To:     www-webont-wg@w3.org                                              
                    <pfps@research.bell       cc:     connolly@w3.org                                                   
                    -labs.com>                Subject:     PROPOSAL to close issue 4.6 [was Re: SEM: peeking at         
                    Sent by:                   approach to  4.6 EquivalentTo]                                           
                    2002-10-31 08:30 PM                                                                                 

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...
> ========
> #  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 18:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:37 UTC