ISSUE-22
role-rule-sugar
POSTPONED: Add sugar for rule (?x :hasSibling ?y) ^ :Male(?y) => (?x :hasBrother ?y)
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Raised by:
- Alan Ruttenberg
- Opened on:
- 2007-10-25
- Description:
Reported by alanruttenberg, Oct 02, 2007 See thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0004.html example how in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007OctDec/0015.html (R4) SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(sibling manman) brother) (A1) SubClassOf( Man ObjectExistsSelf(manman) ) (A3) ObjectPropertyDomain( manman Man ) (A4) FunctionalObjectProperty( manman ) Delete comment Comment 1 by alanruttenberg, Oct 06, 2007 Ian Horrocks says: Now you have pointed out the basic trick, I wonder why the set of axioms for expressing this rule is so complex. In particular, why do we need it to be the case that manman(x,x) <=> Man(x) -- wouldn't it be enough that Man(x) => manman(x,x)? We could also do without reflexivity -- we could simply use an existential restriction to force the existence of *some* manman relation and then use (sibling manman InverseObjectProperty(manman)) as the role chain implying brother. This would give: SubClassOf(Man ObjectExists(manman Thing)) SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(sibling manman InverseObjectProperty(manman)) brother)
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de on 2008-04-23)
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-04-23)
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from clu@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de on 2008-04-23)
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from hoekstra@uva.nl on 2008-04-23)
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de on 2008-04-23)
- RE: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-04-18)
- Re: closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-04-18)
- closing ISSUE-22 (special syntax for role rule) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-04-18)
- Re: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-03-23)
- ISSUE-22 (role-rule-sugar): Add sugar for rule (?x :hasSibling ?y) ^ :Male(?y) => (?x :hasBrother ?y) (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-10-25)
Related notes:
2007-12-22 10:21:32: Issue accepted 2007.12.9: see minutes http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2007.12.19/Minutes [Ian Horrocks]
2008-01-16 00:02:19: I think we should close this with no action. Here's why:
1) It's a new feature and there is no concrete proposal and I spent a few minutes trying to think of a syntax and had no good one other than the rule itself
2) Having just this one rule (which wouldn't be DL safe!) is very strange and might conflict with rule extensions
3) It seems that the best place for this is in a "Decidable swrl compiler" (as a visitor here was working on). There are *lots* of rules that you can compile using the new expressive property axioms. Why *this* one? Just because we thought of it? Better to encourage the development of these SWRL compilers and leave it to a "decidable fragments of SWRL" group. [Bijan Parsia]
2008-04-24 13:15:02: See: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Teleconference.2008.04.23/Minutes#Issue_22_-_Add_sugar_for_rule_.28.3Fx_:hasSibling_.3Fy.29_.5E_:Male.28.3Fy.29_.3D.3E_.28.3Fx_:hasBrother_.3Fy.29 [Ian Horrocks]
Display change log.