W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: ACTION-93 / ISSUE-63: Initiated work on OWL-1.1-Full semantics

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:45:26 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDA45@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Peter!

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> >5/ The RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL 1.0 would be incorrect if
>> >	owl:FunctionalProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty
>>
>> Why is this an error? All instances of the class
>'owl:FunctionalProperty'
>> will certainly be instances of the class rdf:Property, right? And in
>OWL
>> Full, the classes 'rdf:Property' and 'owl:ObjectProperty' have
>identical
>> class extensions, according to sec. 5.3 of the AS&S. So the above
>axiomatic
>> triple is equivalent to
>>
>>       owl:FunctionalProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property
>
>Yes, in OWL 1 Full, but not in the RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL 1
>DL.
>
>In OWL 1 DL there can be functional data properties, which are not
>object properties.

Ok, this clarifies things. Thanks!

The WG will have to decide whether we want to have such an "RDF style"
OWL-DL clone or not in OWL 2. I cannot see a demand in the charter for such
a language. And I do not remember that there was any advocacy in the WG or
by someone else in favor for it (although I remember that there was once a
mail from a HP employee bringing this language into play). And I,
personally, do not see any value in such a language, but see a lot of
disadvantages instead.

Anyway, I will raise an issue.

And, independently on the outcome, I am going to change the axiomatic
triples to applying the RDFS vocabulary.

Cheers,
Michael



Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 08:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 21 April 2008 08:46:12 GMT