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

RE: ISSUE-64 (obj-prop-chain rep): REPORTED: object property chains in triples: confusion of list with property

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:45:25 -0000
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001f01c82c34$01638500$2711a8c0@wolf>

Agree. Instead of owl11:propertyFromChain, I would simply call it owl11:propertyChain: the semantics of <x owl11:propertyChain
LIST[y1 ... yn]> would then be "the extension of x is obtained by chaining together  y1, ..., yn". In OWL 1.1 Full one could use
this everywhere, and not just in the rdfs:subPropertyOf. (In the DL version, however, we'll have to disallow such free usage of
owl11:propertyChain.)

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 21 November 2007 11:40
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-64 (obj-prop-chain rep): REPORTED: object property chains in triples: confusion of
> list with property
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello Jeremy,
> >
> > I am not sure I completely understand what the problem is here, so please let me just restate the
> problem.
> >
> > I get the impression that you are worrying about a proper definition for the semantics of
> rdfs:subPropertyOf. The semantics of this
> > property is defined in RDF(S), so we can't redefine it in OWL.
> 
> Yes
> 
> > Thus, we would somehow need to ensure that the interpretation of the
> > first node in the rdfs:subPropertyOf is equivalent to the semantics of the property chain.
> 
> The interpretation of the first node must be a property and have an
> appropriate property extension.
> 
> That node may be the same as the list node, or could be some other node,
> that depends on the mapping rules.
> 
> 
> >
> > Is this a correct summary of the problem? If that's it, I have no problem with extending the RDF
> mapping.
> >
> 
> 
> Yes I don't think this is hard.
> 
> I was trying to list issues, (some easy, some difficult).
> I wasn't trying to restrict myself particularly.
> 
> I think it is poor form to sit on issues and raise them later in the
> working group life, when I am aware of them today.
> 
> Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:46:09 GMT

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