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

RE: (Object|Data)Property axioms missing in semantics document

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 10:44:13 +0100
To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>, "'Owl Dev'" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c8116b$713f5d10$0200a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

In the semantics document, you will not find the definitions of the interpretation of the ObjectProperty(P), DataProperty(P),
OWLClass(C), and Individual(I) in any table, and this is intended. Object and data properties, classes, and individuals are the base
symbols and you can interpret them arbitrarily. That is, you define an interpretation by (arbitrarily) choosing the interpretation
of the base symbols. This is mentioned in the document immediately before Table 1.

Once you have chosen the interpretation of the basic symbols, you have to extend it to complex constructors; in doing so you need to
follow certain rules. Tables 1 to 3 define these rules, i.e., how to extend the interpretation of the basic symbols to more complex
ones.

Finally, Table 4 has a slightly different purpose: it defines which interpretations are models.

I hope that this classification helps somewhat.

Sincerely,

	Boris

P.S.: Please note also that ObjectProperty(P) and DataProperty(U) are not axioms.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael
> Schneider
> Sent: 18 October 2007 10:05
> To: Owl Dev
> Subject: (Object|Data)Property axioms missing in semantics document
> 
> 
> Hi!
> 
> The "Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax" document
> 
>   <http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/owl_specification.html#4.1>
> 
> defines the functional syntax for the axioms
> 
>   * ObjectProperty(P)
>   * DataProperty(U)
> 
> But in the "Model-Theoretic Semantics" document
> 
>   <http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/semantics.html>
> 
> the different "functional syntax --> semantics" tables do not contain
> explicit entries for these two axioms.
> 
> Is there a reason for this omission? I don't really know, but perhaps, such
> entries would be redundant, because the semantics of object properties and
> data properties are already discussed in chapter 2 ("Model-Theoretic
> Semantics") of the same document, although without mentioning the respective
> functional style expressions.
> 
> >From a practical point of view I would appreciate to have the two additional
> entries in one of the tables, because I generally use the tables in this
> "semantics" document whenever I am uncertain about the correct way to write
> the different axioms. Yes, I know, this is not the intended usage of this
> document. :-) But otherwise I would have to go to the "syntax" document and
> follow the grammar rules there, what I regard to be pretty inconvenient in
> certain cases!
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
> 
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2007 14:58:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:55 GMT