To: Boris Motik <email@example.com>
Subject: [LC response] To Boris Motik
Thank you for your comment
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
Thanks for pointing out this mistake! The theorem has been updated.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.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.
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
the theorem to hold, the entailed ontology should not contain DifferentInfividuals. This minor oversight is demonstrated by the fact that the ontology A(a) B(b) DisjointClasses( A B ) entails Differentindividuals( a b ) under the DirectSemantics; however, the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules do not entail the triple <a, owl:differentIndividuals, b>. The bug was in that DifferentIndividuals involves negation, but the OWL 2 RL/RDF rules preserve only the positive facts. We can fix this by deleting DifferentIndividuals from the list of allowed assertions in the entailed ontology. This change obviously does not impact the implementations; therefore, I believe we can just fix this bug in the Wiki without too much trouble. Please let me know if you object to this.