W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: Annotation entailment?

From: Denny Vrandecic <denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 11:37:45 +0200
Message-ID: <46838169.2070204@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, OWL list <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Actually I am not sure if it is wanted. The use case was that I have two 
ontologies from different sources, and one has some labels in Spanish, 
the other in English. Now I map the ontologies by using owl:sameAs, 
owl:equivalentClasses, and owl:equivalentProperties.

Do the labels carry to the mapped entities? I have the feeling that they 
should.

On the other hand, if I use the annotation properties to give some 
administrative data about the URIs -- introduced by, last changed on, 
etc. -- then it feels wrong.

So, really, I don't know what the correct answer is. I hoped that there 
would be a definitive answer in the spec, but I didn't yet look it up. I 
will check out Boris' paper, too.

denny

Alan Ruttenberg schrieb:
> 
> I have recently understood it to be the case that this *is* entailed. 
> However, I don't think that it is desirable, and it seems to be the case 
> that there is no OWL-DL reasoner that attempts to be sound and 
> (otherwise) complete that implements this behavior, at least that I'm 
> aware of.
> 
> What do you think of this behavior? Is it is what you expected or 
> wanted? If so, I'd be interested hearing about your use case.
> 
> Until recently it was my (flawed) understanding that statements 
> involving annotation properties were to be ignored by a reasoner.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> 
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
> 
>>
>> Does
>> ex:A rdf:label "Groo".
>> ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
>> entail
>> ex:B rdf:label "Groo"?
>>
>> i.e. are annotation property instances connected to the URI or the 
>> underlying individual?
>> (And respectively for classes and properties)
>>
>> Wondering,
>> denny
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 09:37:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT