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

possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:40:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071213.114041.218526536.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

There has been discussion on compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL
Full as well as backwards compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL 1.0
DL.

I propose the following solution, which defines what we want for
compatability as well as changing DL in line with the practice of
existing DL reasoners.  (Changes are marked with *.)

OWL Full: RDF extension
- Normative syntax is RDF graphs.
- Normative semantics is an extension of RDFS Semantics with
  extra semantic conditions on RDF(S) and OWL vocabulary.
- Any RDF graph is a valid "input".
  - Some RDF graphs are ontologies,
    - namely those that ... owl:Ontology.
  - It is expected that inputs will be ontologies.

OWL DL: Ontology Language with Semantic Web basis
- Normative syntax is the functional-style syntax.
- Normative semantics is the DL-style semantics.
- Only ontologies that meet all requirements of FS syntax are allowed,
  - including the non-local requirements related to simple roles.
* Annotations are not allowed on the right-hand side of entailments.
  - This fixes the problem noted in ISSUE-72 at the expense of limiting
    what sort of questions can be asked in OWL DL.

Relationship between the two views:
1/ There is a translation T from the functional-style syntax to RDF
   triples. 
2/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL DL entailment
   then O |= O' in OWL DL implies that T(O) |= T(O') in OWL Full
   - This is the current relationship between OWL DL and OWL Full, where
     there are more entailments in OWL Full than in OWL DL.
     It allows for punning, defining how OWL DL and OWL Full are allowed
     to relate in this area.

Desirable backward-compatibility property:
1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL 1.1 DL entailment
   and O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
   then O |= O' in OWL 1.1 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.1 RDF
   - This says that we keep exact correspondence whereever possible.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2007 17:00:38 GMT

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