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

ISSUE-142 (Rdlrelation): Problems with statement re: relationship between OWL-RL DL and OWL-RL Full

From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:42:31 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20080815204231.D3C546B62B@tibor.w3.org>


ISSUE-142 (Rdlrelation): Problems with statement re: relationship between OWL-RL DL and OWL-RL Full

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/142

Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
On product: 

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Relationship_between_OWL-R_DL_and_OWL-R_Full

Spec says:
"let O be an OWL-R DL ontology in which no URI is used both as an object and a data property; and let F be a set of assertions of the following form"

But O already includes assertions like those in F and more. What's meant is O is an ontology in something less than OWL-R DL.

Also, it is unclear what happens in the case of datatype inconsistencies. (I think nothing in the case of the rules). So it is unclear to me how to interpret the condition

F is a consequence of O under the OWL 2 DL semantics if and only if RDF(F) is a consequence of RDF(O) ∪ AXIOMS under the standard first-order semantics.

In cases such as: PropertyDomain(p1 xsd:string) PropertyAssertion(p1 x "1"^^xsd:int)), as in OWL-DL everything follows from such an inconsistency, but this isn't inconsistent according with the rules currently stated.
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 20:43:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 August 2008 20:43:07 GMT