W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > December 2007

Re: QCR problem in OWL 1.1 Full - action ?? from F2F

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 05:13:33 +0000
Message-Id: <3AB97CD4-904B-4274-A153-4EEA7E81925A@gmail.com>
Cc: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Can this be fixed by using a different property than  
owl:maxCardinality? e.g.

_:y rdf:type owl:Restriction
_:y owl:maxQualifiedCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
_:y owl:onProperty child
_:y owl11:onClass Person

i.e. s/owl:maxCardinality/owl:maxQualifiedCardinality/

-Alan

On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Qualified Cardinalities in OWL 1.1 Full
>
>
> Suppose that we want to keep the general flavour of the OWL Full
> semantics *and* use the current OWL 1.1 mapping to RDF.  What would
> happen?
>
>
> Here is an example of how the RDF mapping works (roughly).
>
> ObjectMaxCardinality(2 child) expands to:
>
> _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction
> _:x owl:maxCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> _:x owl:onProperty child
>
> ObjectMaxCardinality(2 child Person) expands to:
>
> _:y rdf:type owl:Restriction
> _:y owl:maxCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> _:y owl:onProperty child
> _:y owl11:onClass Person
>
> Note especially that the first set of triples is a "subset" of the
> second set.
>
>
> The OWL 1.0 Full semantics says that the class extension of _:x is the
> set of objects that are related to at most two objects via the  
> property
> extension of child.  A similar-style OWL 1.1 Full semantics would say
> that the class extension of _:y is the set of objects that are related
> to at most two objects that belong to the class extension of Person  
> via
> the property extension of child.
>
> However, the OWL 1.1 Full semantics would then also include the OWL  
> 1.0
> Full semantics.  So, part of the meaning of the last four triples
> (actually the first three of these four, but that doesn't matter)  
> in OWL
> 1.1 Full would be that the class extension of _:y would *as well*  
> be the
> set of objects that are related to at most 2 objects via the property
> extension of child.
>
> So, if o is in the class extension of _:y then it is related to at  
> most
> two objects that belong to the class extension of Person via the
> property extension of child *and* it is related to at most two objects
> via the property extension of child.  It is impossible to have a  
> max-QCR
> without this double meaning.
>
>
>
> peter
>
Received on Saturday, 8 December 2007 05:13:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:29 GMT