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

Re: Some basic questions about OWL-Full

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:49:23 +0100
Message-ID: <471F4D63.4060406@hpl.hp.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Michael Schneider wrote:

> 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)?

Yes - the OWL WG Charter acknowledges these points to my satisfaction, see:


All new features should have a clear syntax, and a clear semantics both 
in terms of OWL DL and OWL Full. The existing compatibility between OWL 
DL and OWL Full should be preserved, and should be extended to new 
features wherever possible.

I am hoping to post something to the OWL WG list on sub property chains, 
real soon now.

Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 13:49:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:16 UTC