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

Re: comment on Profile document: Missing rule in OWL-R?

From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:26:51 -0400
Message-ID: <480D5AFB.70407@oracle.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>


Ivan Herman wrote:
> Hi Alan (and the other editors of the document, actually...:-)
> In the meantime I found a similar issue with Rule #4 and #5: those two 
> rules are on Object and Datatype Properties, but a similar rule might 
> be necessary for rdfs Properties, too.
> However: after all, I think we should _not_ just massage the rule set. 
> I think we should look at the proposed Issue 116 first (if the Working 
> Group accepts it, that is).
> Indeed, it must be decided whether we want axiomatic triples in the 
> first place and, if the decision on that question is 'yes', then which 
> axiomatic triples we are talking about. Those may influence the rule 
> set as it is now. Eg, not only could we add an axiomatic triple saying 
> (owl:Class owl:sameAs rdfs:Class) for the Full version (which would 
> solve the problem I raised), but by adding things like
> (rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty)
> some of the rules in the current rule set become superfluous.
> But... the whole issue of how OWL-R-Full and OWL-R-DL relate to one 
> another becomes then an issue, and we should carefully consider that, 
> too... Ie, this warrants a more fundamental discussion in my view...
Do you have an example which shows the relationship between OWL-R-Full & 
OWL-R-DL becomes problematic after adding some axiomatic triples?

Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 03:28:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC