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

Re: Mapping to RDF Graphs and reification

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:45:06 -0600
Cc: Jeff Thompson <jeff@thefirst.org>, Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F8D32662-AF72-4BE2-9349-1EE44A072D6C@ihmc.us>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:11 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Dec 4, 2008, at 2:55 AM, Jeff Thompson wrote:
>> Thanks everyone for the comments.  Note that the message from Tim I  
>> quoted was
>> about provenance.
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2007Jan/0088.html
>> This issue is confusing because a first instinct for annotations is  
>> to use them
>> to give the provenance of a triple.
> In OWL, we focus on Axioms, but the point remains.
>>  Indeed the first annotation example in
>> the OWL 2 primer appears to be
> does address.
>> addressing this:
>> Individual f:John
>>  Facts: Annotations: dc:author Individual(f:peter)
>>                      dc:creationDate "2008-01-10"^^xsd:date
>>                      rdfs:comment "A simple fact about John"
>>  f:hasWife f:Mary
>> The confusion is that this is arguably NOT provenance data
> It definitely is provenance data.
>> about who is being quoted
> It is not a quotation. I definitely wouldn't conflate the two notions.
>> to say that f:John f:hasWife f:Mary, but rather an assertion that  
>> peter put
> I.e., the provenance of that axiom.
>> this
>> triple into THIS ontology according to the semantics that peter  
>> knew that
>> this ontology has for f:John, etc.  This is OK, and within the  
>> intended semantics
>> of OWL 2 annotations.
>> If however there is someone else, such as Bob, out there in the  
>> world who is the
>> provenance source and is being quoted as saying that John hasWife  
>> Mary, then it
>> matters to quote how Bob said this.
> Annotations are not about quoting, for sure.
>>  If the ontology includes f:Mary sameAs f:SecretAgent99,
>> then Bob may never have said that John hasWife SecretAgent99, so it  
>> is not correct
>> to use an OWL 2 style annotation to *quote* what Bob originally  
>> said, because the
>> semantics of OWL 2 annotations absorb all the sameAs and other  
>> inferences in the ontology.
> I don't know what you mean by "absorb", but I suspect that it's not  
> quite as true as you'd like. Annotations do not follow entailments.
>> The problem is that many people will see OWL 2 annotations and leap  
>> on them to solve
>> the desperate need for provenance data in RDF/OWL, but they  
>> shouldn't.
> They solve a great deal of provenance issues people have (like  
> tracking who did what to which axiom) in building ontologies. They  
> do not, nor are they meant, to deal with quotation. However, they  
> can be used for things like tracking down whether it was two  
> separate people who added contradictory axioms, which of the  
> contradictory axioms came first, etc. You don't need (or want)  
> quotation for that.

Right. What you need is the ability to refer to the particular axiom  
(triple), and RDF reification does give you that. The re/dicto issue  
is all about the three URIs in the reified triple (in the reification,  
do they still refer to the same things?- yes in RDF) not about the  
triple itself.


IHMC                                     (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St.           (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                            (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                              (850)291 0667   mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 16:51:51 UTC

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