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

RE: A proposal for the fragments document

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:45:21 -0000
To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002b01c88397$4bf69250$d012a8c0@wolf>

Hello Michael,

Thanks for these corrections! I've corrected most of them, apart from the ones I mention below; for some I have additional
questions.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de]
> Sent: 11 March 2008 13:04
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; bcg@cs.man.ac.uk
> Subject: RE: A proposal for the fragments document
> 

[snip]

> * Table 2 and 3: For the rules with a list as an argument ("intersectionOf", unionOf): The list head
> should be the RHS, but currently is the LHS. e.g.: Currently: "T(?x1 intersectionOf ?c)" but should
> be "T(?c intersectionOf ?x1)" ("x1" denotes the list head).
> 

I'm not sure I understand this comment. If C is an intersection of C1 and C2, then this is serialized as

classID owl:intersectionOf T(SEQ description1 ... descriptionn) .

In the rules, ?x1 is matched to the list, and ?c is matched to the class, so we need in the rule the triple "T(?c,
owl:intersectionOf, ?x1)", and this is what we indeed have.

> * Table 2 and 3: It is "rdf:subPropertyOf" ("rdf:*"!) but should be "rdfs:subPropertyOf". Ditto (but
> with "owl:") for "intersectionOf" and "unionOf".
> 

I'm not sure I understand this comment.

> * Perhaps not really editorial: There is no rule for "owl11:ReflexiveProperty", but the other new
> property characteristics of OWL-1.1 have rules. Was this ommission intended?
> 

OWL-R cannot safely support reflexive properties: such properties depend on the entire domain, so this means that we potentially
cannot consider just the explicitly mentioned objects.


Thanks again for these comments; I really appreciate them!

Regards,

	Boris
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 16:54:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 11 March 2008 16:54:34 GMT