- From: Rouquette, Nicolas F (316A) <nicolas.f.rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>
- Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:30:42 -0800
- To: "public-owl-comments@w3.org" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C741D302.EB2C%Nicolas.F.Rouquette@jpl.nasa.gov>
Below are three comments about 11.2 in http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#The_Restrictions_on_the_Axiom_Closure
1) Define the forest of anonymous individuals.
Michael Schneider raised questions about this a few months ago:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009May/0362.html
Based on the description & example, I understand that, given a set of axioms Ax, F is a directed graph with vertices V and edges E such that:
* V = the set of all anonymous individuals appearing in the syntactic definition of any of the axioms in Ax.
* E = the set of all pairs (_:x, _:y) such that _:y is directly a child of _:x
Please clarify:
* what makes an anonymous individual a root of F?
* what makes an anonymous individual _:y a child of another anonymous individual _:x?
2) Example on "Restrictions on Datatypes"
Since the restriction involves a strict partial order, I suggest replacing the following:
For example, it can be readily verified that the order < given below fulfills the above conditions.
xsd:string < a:SSN < a:TIN < a:TaxNumber
With this:
For example, it can be readily verified that the partial order <1 given below fulfills the above conditions.
xsd:string <1 a:SSN <1 a:TaxNumber
xsd:string <1 a:TIN <1 a:TaxNumber
The total order <2 given below fulfills the above conditions and is also consistent with the partial order <1 given above.
xsd:string <2 a:SSN <2 a:TIN <2 a:TaxNumber
3) Restriction on Simple Roles
The first and second examples would be clearer if you provided the strict partial order instead of a total order and indicated the provenance of the ordering constraints to the axioms.
For the first example, I suggest replacing:
For example, it can be readily verified that the order < given below fulfills the above conditions.
a:hasFather < a:hasBrother < a:hasUncle < a:hasWife < a:hasAuntInLaw
With:
For example, it can be readily verified that the partial order <1 given below fulfills the above conditions.
a:hasFather <1 a:hasUncle # 1st axiom
a:hasBrother <1 a:hasUncle # 1st axiom
a:hasUncle <1 a:hasAuntInLaw # 2nd axiom
a:hasWife <1 a:hasAuntInLaw # 2nd axiom
The total order <2 given below fulfills the above conditions and is consistent with the partial order <1 given above.
a:hasFather <2 a:hasBrother <2 a:hasUncle <2 a:hasWife <2 a:hasAuntInLaw
For the second example, since the axioms are symmetric, it is ambiguous which ordering constraints corresponds to which axiom. I suggest replacing:
To verify this condition formally, note that, for < to satisfy the third subcondition of the third condition, we need a:hasUncle < a:hasBrother and a:hasBrother < a:hasUncle; ...
with:
To verify this condition formally, note that, for < to satisfy the third subcondition of the third condition, we need a:hasUncle < a:hasBrother (2nd axiom) and a:hasBrother < a:hasUncle (1st axiom); ...
- Nicolas.
Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 05:31:27 UTC