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

Re: the other DAML+OIL semantics

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:56:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080208.075618.86976122.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, fikes@ksl.stanford.edu

From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: the other DAML+OIL semantics
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 12:44:14 +0100

> (Ok, since I brought this up... (I already had some words offlist))
> IMHO(!), dropping this axiom would be the way to go, since it doesn't match
> the current RDF semantics, anyway. So this would really be a straightforward
> fix for the inconsistency problem. 
> Let me say that I only was about reporting this bug, and if there is a
> simple fix, then I am glad. And I did not know that this is a well known
> fact, sorry, I just run over this when trying to get a first impression of
> the axiomatic semantics for DAML+OIL.
> I am not able to tell whether the "rdfs:Class = rdf:Property = ..." problem,
> which Peter reported, is hard to repair or not, but I would be glad to hear
> that this can be fixed equally easily.
> Greetings,
> Michael

I believe that this last would have been best fixed by making range not
be functional, i.e., remove

	(FunctionalProperty range) [range axiom 2]

I believe that this axiom came from some wording in some RDF document
predating the current RDF(S) semantics.

By the way, there are other aspects of the axiomatic semantics that
don't match up with the current RDF(S) semantics.  For example, the
rdf:_1, etc., properties are functional in the axiomatic semantics, but
that is not part of RDF(S).  The axiomatic semantics predates the
current RDF(S) semantics, and some aspects of it can be explained as
best guesses as to how RDF(S) was supposed to work.

Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 13:01:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:02 UTC