W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > January to March 2008

Re: Xtreme Punning

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 09:55:25 +0000
Message-Id: <758A394F-6DBD-455D-89EE-83914C6C2A7B@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On Jan 11, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Here's a little OWL I wrote,
> Your reasoner will check it node for node.
> Don't worry, it will be happy!
>
>     ex:foo rdf:type ex:foo .
>     ex:foo ex:foo ex:foo .
>     ex:foo ex:foo "ex:foo"^^ex:foo .

Yes, that's legal. It's legal in RDF too. Whether one considers it  
happy, even as a degenerate case, is a different issue. Consider:

	rdf:type rdf:type rdf:type.

Which is legal in RDF and OWL Full (but not, I believe, in OWL 1.1,  
because we don't, IIRC, have built-in syntax punning, though we could).

One strong motivation for punning in OWL 1.1 was to make more RDF  
graphs legal and to give them a reasonable and implementable semantics.

> When thinking about punning in OWL-1.1-DL, I always differentiated  
> between
> two "kinds" of punning:
>
>     * punning between individuals and classes,
>     * punning between data properties and object properties.

I'm afraid that's your own imposed differentiation. Punning has  
always, technically speaking, been about having an nonseparated  
vocabulary without imposing limits on how it was nonseparated (except  
for the built-in vocab; which I think could be better handled, from a  
user perspective, with an annotation space).

[snip]

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 11 January 2008 09:55:43 GMT

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