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

Re: owl semantics

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:58:06 +0100
Message-Id: <91354CFA-E74F-446E-8731-12A3EEAB81A8@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Matthew Pocock <matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk>

These are very useful comments/suggestions. Can you please document  
them using the issues list at <http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/ 
list> -- that will ensure that they are addressed by the new OWL WG.

Thanks,

Ian


On 24 Jul 2007, at 20:44, Matthew Pocock wrote:

>
> Thanks to all who answered my question. The answer was that the  
> vocabulary is
> the complete set of things that can possibly be said, not the  
> things that are
> used in a particular ontology. So, deltaD contains all data values  
> possible,
> and deltaI contains all individuals possible, and so on.
>
> There was no consensus about what the sub-set of the vocabulary  
> used by a
> particular ontology is called e.g. the named classes that a particular
> ontology uses, or all property expressions in the ontology.
>
> Perhaps the spec could include a sentence making this clear, for  
> those of us
> who don't come to the document already steeped in DL lore?
>
> My next question/observation is that the interpretation table 3  
> mentions both
> named things (e.g. OWL:Thing) and un-named things (e.g. description
> expressions) as having interpretations. The word 'class' here (as  
> in 'class
> interpretation function') seems to be a different use of the word  
> to the rest
> of the spec documents, where 'description' would be the right name.
> Similarly, the object property interpretation function seems to be  
> over
> object property expressions rather than what the rest of the spec  
> calls
> object properties.
>
> My inner pedant finds this unfortunate.
>
> Matthew
>
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 12:58:12 GMT

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