Reviews:StefanoDavid about NegativePropertyAssertions
Revision as of 13:25, 10 September 2009 by StefanoDavid(Talk | contribs)(New page: {{Content OP Proposal Review Template |CreationDate=2009/9/10 |SubmittedBy=StefanoDavid |ContentOPUnderReview=NegativePropertyAssertions |RevisionID=5778 |ReviewSummary=The purpose of this...)
The pattern seems very useful, expecially if used (possible use case) in knowledge systems where is difficult to migrate knowledge bases from OWL1 to OWL2, for different reasons.
the functional syntax seems wrong: According to the W3C specs, it should be NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(ns:prop ns:i1 ns:i2)
it seems to me more a reengineering pattern, as it relates two similar but different languages.
I am not completely sure that there is an equivalence relation among the LHS and the LHS, so I expect a proof or explanation accompaning it
The modeling problem is well stated, but besides the proposed solution, no documentation is provided (ise cases, scenario, etc.)