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

ISSUE-3 and RDF simple entailment

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:22:48 +0000
Message-ID: <47C7EB08.2060405@hpl.hp.com>
To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>

One question that came up in HP discussion was whether the proposed 
resolution to ISSUE-3 would break the monotonicity requirement for 
semantic extensions

I suggested that the proposal does break this requirement. Here are the 
test cases, are these correct?

Here is a simple test case:

_:a rdf:type owl:Thing.
eg:dp rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
_:a eg:dp "foo".

_:b rdf:type owl:Thing.
eg:dp rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
_:b eg:dp "foo".

A simple-entails B.
A simple-entails A.
A owl-1.0-dl-entails B.
A owl-1.0-dl-entails A.
A does not owl-1.1-dl-entail A.
A does not owl-1.1-dl-entail B.

If I have understood some of the other aspects of OWL 1.1 DL then also
the following:
_:c eg:dp "foo".

_:d eg:dp "foo".

C simple-entails C.
C simple-entails D.
C does not owl-1.1-dl-entail C.
C does not owl-1.1-dl-entail D.

Note: these show why this change while in keeping with Peter's 
characterization [1] of the relationship between OWL Full and OWL DL 
(OWL DL is weaker than OWL Full), misses the relationship between OWL DL 
and RDFS, which is - on the syntactic subset that is OWL DL, OWL DL is 
stronger than RDFS.


Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 11:23:27 UTC

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