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

Re: Annotation entailment?

From: Phillip Lord <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:35:58 +0100
To: Denny Vrandecic <denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Cc: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, Denny Vrandecic <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, OWL list <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <usl8c8de9.fsf@newcastle.ac.uk>



Well, there are circumstances in which it might make sense, and there
are circumstances in which it might not. 

In practice, as far as I can tell, the idea that annotations are
necessarily entailed would require use of a reasoner to find the label
of a individual -- well this seems impractical. More over, I'm not
convinced that open world semantics are particularly sensible for
annotation properties. 

Still I know that there were lots of discussions about annotation
properties and what they should or should not mean for OWL 1.1. I
suspect someone knows what it all means. 

Phil

>>>>> "DV" == Denny Vrandecic <denny@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de> writes:

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

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

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

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

  DV> denny

  DV> 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
  >>> 
  >>> 
  >> 
  >> 






-- 
Phillip Lord,                           Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
Lecturer in Bioinformatics,             Email: phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
School of Computing Science,            http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
Claremont Tower Room 909,               skype: russet_apples
Newcastle University,                   
NE1 7RU
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2007 12:36:28 GMT

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