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

RE: comments on RDF mapping

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:50:06 +0100
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000901c8165d$ee9ceb50$2711a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I would just like to point out that, with or without punning, already in OWL 1.0 you have an ontology O containing the triples
(1)--(5). Hence, the problem that I described in my previous e-mail is already there and is not specific to OWL 1.1.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 24 October 2007 17:23
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
> 
> 
> 
> Boris
> [[
> Imagine that your ontology O contains all the following triples:
> 
> (1)  <X rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty>
> (2)  <X rdf:type owl:DataProperty>
> 
> (3)  <Y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty>
> (4)  <Y rdf:type owl:DataProperty>
> 
> (5)  <X rdfs:subPropertyOf Y>
> 
> Note that triples (1) and (2), and (3) and (4) are allowed because you
> can have punning in OWL 1.1; hence, you can use the same name
> as both object and a data property.
> 
> If you now try to produce an axiom that corresponds to triple (5), you
> have a problem: is this axiom representing inclusions between
> the object property X and the object property Y, or between the data
> property X and the data property Y?
> ]]
> 
> i.e. punning is an unhelpful idea.
> 
> The OWL Full treatment of a URI used as both a DataProperty and an
> ObjectProperty is that it represents a single property.
> 
> This treatment is in OWL 1.0 Full, and extensively deployed (for example
> in the RDF subset of OWL).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 16:50:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT