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

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

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:23:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080123.092344.256738920.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:07:53 +0000

> This proposal feels quite clear, but it seems to suggest that OWL 1.1 DL 
> is a sublanguage of OWL 1.1 Full ...

OWL 1.0 DL is a sublanguage of OWL 1.0 Full so what changes here?

> in the F2F when we discussed fragments, it was felt that fragments 
> should be defined syntactically, but could, in their conformance 
> statements, specify weaker semantic conditions.

> Thus, my reading of this is that OWL 1.1 Full would have univocal URIs, 
> and that OWL 1.1 DL would be a syntactic fragment that had weaker 
> semantic conformance conditions, permitting but not requiring, punning 
> implementations.

Hmm, that was certainly *not* my reading of the relationship in OWL.  In
particular, an OWL 1.1 DL reasoner that made more inferences than
sanctioned by the OWL 1.1 Semantics document would not be conformant.

> Jeremy

peter


> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > There has been discussion on compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL
> > Full as well as backwards compatibility between OWL 1.1 DL and OWL 1.0
> > DL.
> > 
> > I propose the following solution, which defines what we want for
> > compatability as well as changing DL in line with the practice of
> > existing DL reasoners.  (Changes are marked with *.)
> > 
> > OWL Full: RDF extension
> > - Normative syntax is RDF graphs.
> > - Normative semantics is an extension of RDFS Semantics with
> >   extra semantic conditions on RDF(S) and OWL vocabulary.
> > - Any RDF graph is a valid "input".
> >   - Some RDF graphs are ontologies,
> >     - namely those that ... owl:Ontology.
> >   - It is expected that inputs will be ontologies.
> > 
> > OWL DL: Ontology Language with Semantic Web basis
> > - Normative syntax is the functional-style syntax.
> > - Normative semantics is the DL-style semantics.
> > - Only ontologies that meet all requirements of FS syntax are allowed,
> >   - including the non-local requirements related to simple roles.
> > * 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.
> > 
> > Relationship between the two views:
> > 1/ There is a translation T from the functional-style syntax to RDF
> >    triples. 
> > 2/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL DL entailment
> >    then O |= O' in OWL DL implies that T(O) |= T(O') in OWL Full
> >    - This is the current relationship between OWL DL and OWL Full, where
> >      there are more entailments in OWL Full than in OWL DL.
> >      It allows for punning, defining how OWL DL and OWL Full are allowed
> >      to relate in this area.
> > 
> > Desirable backward-compatibility property:
> > 1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL 1.1 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 RDF
> >    - This says that we keep exact correspondence whereever possible.
> > 
> > 
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> > 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 14:55:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 14:55:18 GMT