RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

[This mail goes to Boris as well.]

Ivan Herman wrote:

>Michael,
>
>on another 'branch' of this discussion, Boris and I seem to converge
>towards a solution:
>
>HTTP://www.w3.org/mid/487B16F4.7070709@w3.org
>
>by having a clear name for the rule based solution, although we might
>have to make a clear difference between 'syntactic' profiles (eg,
>OWL-R-DL, in today's terminology) and 'implementation' profiles (eg,
>OWL-R-Full or what Boris calls OWL-R/RDF). The only additional problem I
>see in your mail is the strong reference to RDFS, which actually refers
>to ISSUE-116:
>
>http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/116
>
>Is that correct? And true, this is actually an issue that we will have
>to solve. Or do you see other issues as well?

@Ivan: This is probably the most obvious issue. Perhaps, there might be other 
issues, too. But first, I have to get a better understanding of the whole 
idea.

@Boris: In the description of the raised issue [1], you write:

  """
  - Section 4.3.2 would become Section 4.3
    and we would call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using Rules".
    The contents of the section would remain the same.
  """

This statement is about the actual rule tables. What I am wondering is how 
this is supposed to work. The triple rules, clearly, aren't applicable 
directly in a description logics version of OWL-R in general, and they look to 
me very different from the actual specification of OWL R-DL in particular.

I need to speculate, please comment: If I have an RDF graph, which is intended 
to be an OWL-R ontology in RDF graph form, then:

  (A) If I want to do RDF-based reasoning, I just use the triple rules as I 
would do it in current OWL-R/Full.

  (B) If I want to do DL-style reasoning, then

      (1) I try to map the graph to functional style syntax by means of the 
reverse RDF mapping.

      (2) If the RDF graph could successfully be mapped,
          then the resulting functional syntax is checked against the OWL-R 
constraints
          as provided by the Profiles document (still to be defined, of 
course).

      (3) If the functional syntax turns out to be a valid OWL-R ontology,
          then the model-theoretic semantics as specified in the Semantics 
document
          are applied. These are then the OWL-R/DL semantics of this ontology.

Is it this?

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/131>