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

RE: declaredAs

From: Turner, David <davidt@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:52:40 +0100
Message-ID: <86FE9B2B91ADD04095335314BE6906E8D6D54E@sdcexc04.emea.cpqcorp.net>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: 09 August 2007 17:24
> Subject: Re: declaredAs
> >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).
> 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. 

I realise that this point has been elaborated on later in this thread,
but I wanted to express my general agreement with it anyway. Punning is
rather different from what OWL Full does, and you can observe this
difference via owl:sameAs:

ex:A owl:disjointWith ex:B .
ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B .
_:x rdf:type ex:A .

is syntactically invalid in OWL-1.0 DL, inconsistent in OWL-1.0 Full and
consistent in OWL-1.1 with punning (with thanks to Dave Reynolds)



Dave Turner  Cube T400, HP Labs Bristol, Filton Road, Bristol BS34 8QZ
davidt@hp.com          +44 117 3129104 (Work) +44 7962 811627 (Mobile)

Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Received on Tuesday, 14 August 2007 10:52:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC