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

Re: Intersection of properties?

From: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:08:15 -0700
Message-ID: <48976FBF.5050104@thefirst.org>
To: Dimitrios Koutsomitropoulos <kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr>
CC: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Dimitrios Koutsomitropoulos wrote:
 > [1] Gasse, F., Sattler, U., & Haarslev, V. (2008). Rewriting Rules into
 > SROIQ Axioms. Proceedings of the 2008 International Workshop on Description
 > Logics (DL-2008).

I just read "Rewriting Rules into SROIQ Axioms"  Brilliant!  This is exactly
what I meant about putting the rules for using an OWL ontology into
the ontology.  Here is my pressing issue.

The OWL language goes to great lengths to be monotonic and decidable,
but cannot express what to do with contradictions.  For example:
DisjointClasses(Human, City)
ClassAssertion(Washington, Human)
ClassAssertion(Washington, City)

Contradictions like this are inevitable.  For me to be able to use OWL without
needing to extend it with an external rules language, an OWL ontology needs to be expressive
enough to say what to do if someone inserts a contradictory assertion.
This is such an obvious "use case" that it may be been talked to death already.
Will some future version of OWL be expressive enough to give a rule for resolving

- Jeff
Received on Monday, 4 August 2008 21:08:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:17 UTC