LC2 Responses/US2

From OWL
Revision as of 13:54, 30 April 2009 by BijanParsia (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

To: umberto.straccia@isti.cnr.it>
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Umberto Straccia

Dear Umberto,

Thank you for your comment
     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Apr/0075.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.

Unfortunately, adding syntactic sugar does have a significant specification and consensus building cost. Similar syntactic sugar has already been objected to by some communities (see, e.g., [1]). Therefore the working group has decided not to augment the language with the ObjectImplicationOf constructor at this time.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/65

Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.

Regards,
Peter Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group



CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.

PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL



Dear Sirs,

I kindly ask to take into consideration the possibility to allow, among the propositional connectives involved in ClassExpression (ObjectIntersectionOf, ObjectUnionOf, and ObjectComplementOf), a conditional Concept expression ObjectImplicationOf

ObjectImplicationOf(C D),

where C, D are ClassExrpessions

Under classical semantics, implication is just a macro in terms of union and negation,

ObjectImplicationOf(C D) is the same as ObjectUnionOf(ObjectComplementOf(C) D),

so is syntactic sugar.

This is, however not true in general in a "fuzzy OWL" setting and, thus, this kind of expressions cannot be represented in OWL 2.

Regards,

-Umberto Straccia