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

Re: Punning and the "properties for classes" use case (from public-owl-dev)

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:35:36 -0400
Message-Id: <648493FC-20E5-4E7E-8A53-D9EF72BA491F@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

I've moved the technical bit from this email to  http://www.w3.org/ 
2007/OWL/wiki/Compatibility_between_OWL_DL_and_OWL_Full
as a starting point. Let's collect issues and evaluation metrics there.

(I'm still trying to understand the example)

-Alan


On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Punning and the "properties for classes" use case  
> (from public-owl-dev)
> Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:01:00 -0400
>
>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Also, I'd like to understand the reasoning behind Ian's assertion
>>
>>> Name separation is required, however, if Fast OWL is to be embedded
>>> in RDFS in such a way as to be semantically compatible with Large  
>>> OWL.
>
> This is precisely the argument that is being replayed right now.   
> It was
> thought that name separation would allow complete and exact
> correspondence between the two semantics when ontologies were  
> restricted
> to OWL DL.
>
> This doesn't work because of domain size issues, e.g.,
>
> 	Axy x=y -> pa iff qa
>
> is "valid" in OWL Full but not in OWL DL.
>
> (Yes, this is neither OWL Full nor OWL DL, but it illustrates the  
> point.
> The OWL version is something like
>
> 	ObjectProperty ( ex:s inverseOf ( ex:si ) )
> 	ObjectProperty ( ex:q )
> 	SubClassOf ( owl:Thing restriction ( ex:s value ( ex:spy ) ) )
> 	Individual ( ex:spy type ( restriction ( ex:si cardinality  
> ( 1 ) ) ) )
> 	Individual ( ex:a type ( ex:p ) )
>
> entails in OWL Full / does not entail in OWL DL
>
> 	Individual ( ex:a type ( ex:q ) )
>
> I leave it up to the WG members to rewrite this in RDF/XML.)
>
> I believe that the name separation compromise worked into the RDF
> mapping was to try to achieve complete correspondence on the part  
> of OWL
> DL that was rewritable as RDF.  When it was shown that complete
> correspondence was not possible name separation was already in and  
> never
> was revisited.
>
>>   (BTW, what's Fast OWL and Large OWL?)
>
> Working names for what became OWL DL and OWL Full.
>
>>
>> -Alan
>
> peter
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:35:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT