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

Re: declaredAs

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:16:09 +0100
Message-Id: <A52DFB8D-B7DD-4949-BC86-CF0C4D111436@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk
To: "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>

Two small corrections.

On 9 Aug 2007, at 12:59, Michael Schneider wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, if the declaredAs mechanism were already demanded by the  
> definition itself, arguing for the necessity of the declaredAs  
> mechanism is like saying: "It's so because the bible says so!". But  
> I won't believe that the declaredAs proponents really argue in such  
> a trivial way. :)

Good methodology :)

> Well, this discussion is a little behind, now that Bijan told me  
> what the real intention for the declaredAs mechanism is:

This is merely *my* understanding. Boris, for example, may have a  
different understanding!

> To make one's intention explicit ("This URI is intended to denote  
> a /class/"). But I at least wanted to make clear how I understood  
> the above definition of "structural consistency", because it might  
> explain a few of my arguments in my former posts. Especially it  
> should explain, why I argued for creating such a "best-practice"  
> document plus a reference implementation for checking the  
> "structural consistency" of an ontology.
[snip]
>> You are referring to OWL-DL. But in OWL-Full it is possible for
>> example to write
>
> This is an easy one to counter: This whole thread is about a  
> proposed feature for OWL-1.1, which is planned to become the  
> successor of OWL/DL. So I regard bringing OWL-Full or even other  
> languages into play here as simply to be off-topic! :)
[snip]

This is not quite correct, or at least overstrong. OWL 1.1 is indeed  
centered on OWL DL but is an attempt to move toward a revision of  
*OWL*. Thus the WG will take OWL 1.1 as an input, but, presumably,  
work to flesh out other OWL Full aspects (punning is, in fact, a move  
in this direction).

So I wouldn't rule it off topic at all.

However, I believe you were still correct in your analysis of what  
types you can infer from those axioms. You were giving "Triggers"  
roughly, i.e., "if you see a term in the object position of an  
rdf:type triple, then it must (at least) be a class". However, I  
suspect in OWL Full something could be *inferred* to be a class  
without a direct axiom for it, thus things are more complex than is  
happy.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:15:10 UTC

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