Re: How to specify OWL version in a document

What about the case where the ontology meets the DL syntactic 
restrictions but has punning? Isn't it necessary to indicate whether 
entailment should be based on OWL-DL or OWL Full?

Tara

On 6/23/15 12:52 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2015, at 16:06, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com 
> <mailto:sesuncedu@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> There is no pre-defined annotation to indicate the intended OWL 
>> profile for an ontology document.  However, one can indicate actual 
>> compliance with OWL 2-DL by obeying all the DL restrictions 👮.
>>
> You can run your document through a validator as well.
>
> In general, an annotation can become wrong for a lot of reasons. The 
> way to be inside an intended profile is to conform to that profile’s 
> grammar.
>>
>> It is conceptually confusing to state that an ontology document is in 
>> a specific profile,  since most of the more problematic DL violations 
>> may only show up when the entire imports closure is considered - a 
>> document that imports only DL ontology documents may require OWL Full.
>>
> This is one of my favourite things :)
>>
>> You can check an ontology for compliance with a given profile using 
>> the Profile validators in  OWLAPI.
>>
> Indeed.
>>
>> There are existing canonical IRIs for most (all?) OWL entailment 
>> regimes defined as part of the SPARQL 1.1 recommendation series. 
>> These could be used as values for an ontology annotation.
>>
>
> For the reasons you stated, I would generally suggest that this would 
> be unwise unless it’s the *result*of a checking process. But then, 
> it’s easy enough to check, I’m not sure what value it has.
>
> You could imagine having  a hint as to intended profile so that a lint 
> or preflight tool can say “Hey, you are violating your intended 
> profile!” but I doubt that’s really necessary.
>>
>> Such an annotation should always be validated before making the 
>> ontology document visible.
>> If you are using OWLAPI , you could use such an annotation to select 
>> a profile checker. The profile checkers are not designed for 
>> incremental use, but I don't think this would be prohibitively 
>> difficult to implement.
>>
>> It is possible for two documents in an imports closure, with 
>> different declared
>>
> ? You mean they conform to a grammar?
>>
>> sub DL profiles,  to not require  DL, as long as they don't use any 
>> clashing features.
>>
> The condition is a bit stronger: They both have to be in *one* 
> profile. If they start out in different profiles then I don’t think 
> they can collapse to one without already being in that one.
>
> Note that there are documents that are in both EL and RL (or EL, RL, 
> and QL). That is, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan.
>