- 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
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] www-webont-wg-reque st@w3.org 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... > > ======== > 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 I hope the "stance on issues" bit is just out of date.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 18:16:42 UTC