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

Re: declaredAs

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 18:42:24 -0400
Message-Id: <F4236FFD-3BDE-46A3-93DA-46721149AC20@gmail.com>
Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>

Thanks Pat,

Followup question in line

On Aug 9, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:

>> Does it break it, or does it make the OWL-1.1 entailments only be  
>> a subset of OWL-Full entailments.
>> If it breaks, could you say how please?
>
> Peter Patel-Schneider has made the point. RDF semantics is in line  
> with CL semantics by interpreting names as individuals, and  
> allowing individuals to act as classes and properties by mapping  
> them to class and property extensions. This has the consequence  
> that A=B means they are equal in every way, including as classes  
> and as properties. 1.1-style punning maps each name to individuals,  
> classes and properties separately, with no semantic association  
> between these three denotation mappings. This allows the names A  
> and B to have any pattern of identity, including being equal but  
> not equal as classes, which is impossible in RDF or CL.

In RDF this isn't possible anyways, is it, since there is no way to  
express that two individuals are the same, is there?
CL is a point of interest, but I'm not sure how germane it is to a  
discussion of OWL.

Also, would this situation (A=B misses entailment equivalentClasses 
(A,B) and equivalentProperties(A,B)) not fit my characterization that  
the relation of OWL 1.1 to OWL Full is that OWL 1.1 is missing some  
entailments that would be concluded using OWL Full semantics?

> One cannot build the 'punning' style semantics as a semantic  
> extension of the CL-style model theory. One also cannot have  
> genuine logical identity in the punning style semantics. (You can  
> imitate it in OWL 1.1 by saying that it means (sameIndividual AND  
> sameClass AND sameProperty), but this hack won't extend to richer  
> logics and so will have to be redefined over and over again.)

I think this answers the reverse question, namely can OWL 1.1 be  
considered a semantic extension of OWL Full. I was asking if OWL-Full  
can be considered a semantic extension of OWL 1.1.

Thanks,
Alan

>
> Pat
>
>> -Alan
>>
>> On Aug 9, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. Im sure it was meant to have this intention, but the  
>>> effect of moving to punning is two-fold: it breaks the OWL Full  
>>> semantics, and it breaks the semantic connection between OWL and  
>>> RDF. Neither of which are desirable, IMO, though both of them are  
>>> in line with a certain perspective that has long been associated  
>>> with Manchester
>
>
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 22:42:44 GMT

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