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

RE: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in mapping rules is unwise

From: Giorgos Stoilos <gstoil@image.ece.ntua.gr>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:16:57 +0200
Message-Id: <200711221116.lAMBGwTN012959@manolito.image.ece.ntua.gr>
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "'Boris Motik'" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:48 PM
> To: Giorgos Stoilos
> Cc: 'Boris Motik'; 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-67 (reification): REPORTED: use of reification in
> mapping rules is unwise
> Giorgos Stoilos wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As far as I understand annotations are already pretty weak semantically
> in
> > OWL 1.1 (actually they have no semantics), thus mapping them into a
> > structure with weak semantics, like reification, seems harmless to me.
> >
> There is harm concerning:
> a) backward compatibility ISSUE-72
> and
> b) OWL Full/OWL DL semantic compatibility ISSUE-63

Thus, for the case of annotations, these issues (especially 72) should be
resolved first. 

On the other hand I fully agree with the problem/issue when other constructs
which already have formal semantics are used.

Generally, I had the feeling from the discussion that this issue applies
only to annotations, thus wanted to point out this out.

G. Stoilos

> ===
> OWL 1.0 Full treats annotations on entities in the same way as other
> properties. It is likely to be very confusing if OWL 1.1 has annotations
> on axioms with different semantics from annotations on entities. Thus,
> in OWL Full, annotations on axioms should have the semantics of other
> properties. Building such a semantics on top of reification is known not
> to work.
> Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2007 11:20:19 GMT

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