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

RE: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Re: Cardinality Restrictions and Punning

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:22 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A05A5FD6@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>

Hi Pat!

Pat Hayes wrote on Friday, December 21:

>>Of course, the RDF compatible semantics for OWL-1.1 will have to be
>>constructed in a way that the graph {(R1*)} becomes consistent.
>I don't agree. One should expect that the Full semantics will support 
>more entailments than the DL semantics does, since the Full version 
>is obviously a more expressive language than the DL. A special case 
>of this is exactly the situation you describe, where an ontology 
>which is consistent in DL is inconsistent in Full. 

Then let's give OWL-1.1-Full unsatisfiable semantics, and everything will be
fine. ;-)

I don't think that it is a useful idea to allow OWL-DL-consistent ontologies
to become inconsistent in OWL-Full. And if this should not be preventable in
general, one should at least take care that the cases for which this happens
reduce to artificially looking "research examples". If I was an "ordinary"
OWL ontology engineer, I would want to have a save feeling that my
DL-consistent ontologies, which I have created by applying generally
acknowledged design principles, will also be consistent under OWL-Full
semantics. Otherwise I would become very skeptical about the practical value
of OWL-Full (if I haven't been skeptical before anyway :)).

Let's regard Jeremy's ontology discussed in my previous mail: If this
ontology would have had different URIrefs for the data property eg:p and the
object property eg:p, then Jeremy's example would have been a *very* simple
and "naturally looking" ontology. For this "different-URI" version of
Jeremy's ontology I certainly wouldn't have expected that it bites the dust
in OWL-Full, and in fact with different names for the properties this
ontology is actually OWL-Full *consistent*. 

If a "little syntactical" property punning on the OWL-DL side leads to such
big and unexpected semantical changes on the OWL-Full side, then something
must be pretty wrong with the concept of data/object-property punning

>I would be more 
>worried if you could find an example the other way round.

Perhaps, I will give it a try. But certainly not within the next few days.


>This is the first I have heard of 'property punning'. Is there a 
>compelling use case for it? If not, I suggest dropping the idea.

The only stated use case I remember at the moment was:

    Evren Sirin (Wed, 05 Dec 2007):
    "Punning object and data properties"

On the other hand, IIRC, in the past, several WG members have considered
property punning to be *not* very useful.

Merry (semantic-free) Christmas!


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 Saturday, 22 December 2007 15:47:51 UTC

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