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

RE: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:40:12 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A06C2E75@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: 

>The changes that you see are to deal with annotations.  As annotations
>are generally not fully handled in OWL 1.0 DL tools, I thought that it
>would be better to remove annotations in conclusions, as stated in 
>
>> OWL DL: Ontology Language with Semantic Web basis
>> [...]
>> * Annotations are not allowed on the right-hand side of entailments.
>>   - This fixes the problem noted in ISSUE-72 at the expense 
>of limiting
>>     what sort of questions can be asked in OWL DL.
>
>It would probably have been better to make the statement as follows,
>adding the stuff within **.  I also fixed up the wording a bit.
>
>Desirable backward-compatibility property:
>1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for *both* OWL 1.1 DL 
>   *and OWL 1.0 DL* entailment
>   and O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
>   then O |= O' in OWL 1.1 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.1 Full
>
>peter

Hm, I think I was on something else. Let's ignore for the moment the question for rigorous syntactical validity (explicitly typing all entities in 1.1-DL, and the like). Then, the "if-and-then" statement above disallows scenarios, where

  * O does *not* entail O' under both 1.0-DL and 1.0-Full semantics, and

  * O does *not* entail O' under 1.1-DL semantics, but

  * O *does* entail O' under 1.1-Full semantics

But such scenarios will be common, I believe. Take the following example:

  O  := { :p owl11:disjointDataProperties :q }

  O' := { :p owl11:disjointObjectProperties :q }

There is obviously no entailment in OWL-1.0, neither for DL nor Full, since OWL-1.0 does not know about disjoint properties. There is also no entailment in 1.1-DL. But O *will* probably entail O' in 1.1-Full. :p and :q can be deduced from O to (a) be disjoint, and to (b) be data properties. And so, in Full, they are also /object/ properties, still being disjoint as such, of course.

But with the demand for validity... I have to think further on this.

Cheers,
Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus


Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 20:40:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 1 February 2008 20:40:26 GMT