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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:59:54 -0400
Message-Id: <19D070C2-E526-4F6B-B2BF-B8C0894E6119@gmail.com>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org, Alan Rector <rector@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>

On Oct 30, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> Proponents of punning would label this:
>> "OWL DL, now with more, but not all, of OWL Full goodness"
> To some extent this is about labelling ....

Mostly, I think.

> I have been surprised how strongly some of my colleagues feel about  
> this issue - my original take, and still my personal prejudice (but  
> not the position I represent) is that punning is simply an area in  
> which the DL implementations are incomplete.

I would be interested in hearing their views. Any way we can arrange  

> I suspect, but have not checked, that many of the WG would be  
> unhappy with such a position though - and since it would take me  
> some effort to convince HP of it - I haven't given either task much  
> thought.

I don't know about the WG. You would know about HP. But I think it  
would be good to surface all the thinking about this matter so we  
could take it in to consideration. I found Evan's note about chaining  
data values quite helpful, for instance, and perhaps this leads to an  
easily implementable improvement.

> i.e.
> - semantically using the same name for say, a class and an  
> individual, has the consequences that one might expect from OWL Full
> - the OWL DL profile is incomplete, in that, consequences resulting  
> from punning are not computed (but still legal OWL consequences).  
> i.e. an OWL DL reasoner may implement punning in the way that OWL  
> 1.1 reasoners currently are doing so, but the resulting (lack of)  
> entailments is incomplete.

I presume that this is a restatement of the proposed situation. If  
so, I think it is accurate.

Received on Wednesday, 31 October 2007 00:00:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:59 UTC