W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > May 2003

Re: bug in semantics (was Re: intersectionOf and subClassOf)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 22:46:51 +0100
Message-ID: <3EBC21CB.8050403@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Jeremy has pointed out a problem with the semantics.

That gives me more credit than fits with the extent to which this message 
enlightens me as to what the problem is.

> The semantics assumes that intersectionOf is a ``syntactic'' relationship,
> i.e., there are no sufficient conditions for it.  This was fine once upon a
> time, but is now, due to recent changes in the mapping to triples, the
> correspondence theorem is now not correct.
> There are several possible changes:
> 1/ Change the mapping back to the way it was, so that, for example, classes
>    are not related to their ``definition'' by owl:intersectionOf
>    relationships.  Instead there would be an anonymous intersection class
>    related to the named class by an equivalence link.  This would be the
>    safest course.

Hmmm, presumably any triple with subject of classID and predicate being 
owl:unionOf owl:complementOf or owl:intersectionOf would not be permitted 
in OWL DL, such constructs would always be mediated by mapping rules.

It seems like a significant changen (I haven't yet made my mind up, this is 
simply a comment).

> 2/ Leave the mapping the way it is and upgrade owl:intersectionOf from a
>    syntactic relationship to a semantic one.  This would require
>    significant work on the correspondence proofs.  (If this course is taken
>    I would withdraw my action to look into B1 and B2.)

That too seems like a significant change.

> 3/ 

Is this deliberately blank for someone inspired to fill in?

> peter

Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 17:47:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:44 UTC