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

RE: Some basic questions about OWL-Full

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:12:45 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A04A889E@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Pat Hayes wrote:

>>But if I have some arbitrary non-empty ontology O := 
>{A1,...,An}, then O
>>contains the empty ontology as a sub-ontology. So I would 
>assume that every
>>statement which is entailed by the empty OWL-Full ontology 
>will also be
>>entailed by O itself. And if the empty OWL-Full ontology would entail
>>contradictory statements, then /every/ OWL-Full ontology would entail
>>contradictory statements, and then OWL-Full semantics would be totaly
>>broken!
>
>Quite. Which is what Peter meant by "trivial". I 
>am confident that this is not the case, but even 
>if it were I would say they would indeed be 
>broken, but because in that case the OWL semantic 
>conditions were themselves broken. And not 
>necessarily totally, since the next task would be 
>to see how to weaken them so that they weren't 
>broken. IMO they are too strong in some ways in 
>any case, e.g. the intensional view of classes 
>seems better than the extensional one, c.f. 
>terHorst's version of OWL.

After understanding now that the OWL-Full semantics are (largely) defined by
a set of semantic conditions on the URIs of the OWL/RDF vocabulary, another
thing comes to my mind. There is a lot of new vocabulary in OWL-1.1 (e.g.
"owl11:SelfRestriction", "owl11:onClass"). And there are new combinations of
RDF triples, which, while not making use of any new vocabulary, have at
least to be seen as "special" constructs in comparison to OWL-1.0, like for
instance the RDF mapping of sub property chains. See table 2 in

  http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/rdf_mapping.html

Shouldn't there be new and/or adjusted OWL-Full semantic conditions for
this, too? I have not seen them in any of the draft documents? And wouldn't
the addition of such new semantic conditions enlarge the danger of getting
inconsistencies in OWL-Full(-1.1)?

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 Wednesday, 24 October 2007 13:19:49 GMT

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