Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification

This raises an interesting question about the nature of annotations,  
actually.
Are annotations a syntactic feature associated with a document? That  
is, should it be the case that an annotation I make about an axiom I  
write in my ontology entails that some other document has the same  
annotation on an equivalent axiom?

-Alan

On Jul 1, 2008, at 7:28 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> I'm not sure that I believe this.
>
> I think that one consequence of using the shorthand would be that an
> annotated axiom might not entail itself in OWL Full.
>
> For example, how would one arrange it so that
>
> SubClass(Label("Foo") A B)
>
> entails
>
> SubClass(Label("Foo") A B)
>
> in the OWL Full arena?
>
> peter
>
>
>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: RDF/XML shorthand for RDF reification
> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 07:11:54 -0400
>
>> On Jun 26, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> 2/ Changing to named nodes would change the OWL Full semantics.  A
>>>    careful check would have to be made to see whether any  
>>> interesting or
>>>    useful inferences could change.
>>
>>
>> According to Michael this is one not a problem. I'm still thinking  
>> about issue 1/.
>>
>> He says:
>>
>>> Short answer: There are no additional consequences for OWL Full.
>>>
>>> Longer answer: Just have a look at the OWL Full Wiki:
>>>
>>>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/
>>> FullSemanticsAxiomAnnotations#Semantics>
>>>
>>> The "Main semantic condition" there is applicable to both cases,  
>>> with a bNode
>>> or with an URI at the LHS. That's not because I wanted to make  
>>> this semantic
>>> condition more general as in OWL DL - I promise that I always try  
>>> hard to be
>>> as close to the DL semantics as possible. The point is that in an  
>>> RDF
>>> compatible semantics, it is not possible to restrict axioms to  
>>> such RDF graphs
>>> which only have a bNode as their LHS. This would be a syntactic  
>>> restriction,
>>> which is not possible in OWL Full - which is a major distinction  
>>> between OWL
>>> Full and OWL DL.
>>>
>>> So this whole current discussion about named axioms is really  
>>> only an OWL DL
>>> topic. It's the question whether to extend the reverse RDF  
>>> mapping to cases,
>>> where the LHS of an axiom annotation may be an URI, or not. OWL  
>>> Full is
>>> completely indifferent about this question. In particular, in my  
>>> current
>>> proposal, you will always receive the axiom triple as a result,  
>>> whether the
>>> LHS node is a bNode or a URI.

Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2008 10:22:03 UTC