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

Re: suggest owl11:chain to relate a list of properties to their chain/composition

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 17:40:32 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1185921632.15648.50.camel@pav>

On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:22 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> Dan Connolly wrote:
> > According to http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-rdf_mapping/
> > 
> > that seems to map to
> > 
> >  (parent brother) rdfs:subPropertyOf uncle.
> > 
> > Meanwhile, the domain of rdfs:subPropertyOf is Property.
> > So (parent brother) is a Property? I can't see any critical
> > problems just now, but it seems a little odd.
> 
> How so?
> Making the bnode explicit:
> 
> _:p rdfs:subPropertyOf uncle.
> _:p = (parent brother).
> 
> There exist a thing (_:p) that is a subPropertyOf uncle (and hence it is 
> a property), which equals parent composed with brother.
> 
> Doesn't that read OK?

Well, no. I can't put my finger on any sharp mathematical
reasons why not, but it doesn't.

It seems convenient to keep lists and properties disjoint,
i.e. to remain consistent with such a constraint.

It has the feel of an implicit multiplication operator a la y=mx+b

Why should a list of properties be regarded as their composition,
rather than their intersection or union?

It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of

 Man owl:intersectionOf (Person Male).
 Adult owl:unionOf (Man Woman).

That pattern suggests:

 uncle owlnext:compositionOf (parent brother).

though I think the is/of stuff is best left outside the name, hence:

 (parent brother) owlnext:composition uncle.

or

 (parent brother) owlnext:chain uncle.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2007 22:40:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 December 2014 20:07:17 UTC