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

RE: Small discrepancy between the OWL RL set and the RDF semantics document

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:45:26 +0100
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>, "'Zhe \(Alan\) Wu'" <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Cc: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAF0400D0C7243B6AF8058BFB4CBC1E7@wolf>

Hello Ivan,

Thanks for this -- I've corrected the rule set.

Your e-mail, however, has prompted me to note that we had a small omission in the document: we didn't specify the semantics for the
n-ary versions of certain construct; in particular, this was the case for owl:AllDisjointProperties, and owl:AllDisjointClasses, and
owl:AllDifferent. I've extended the rule table; here is the diff:

http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=12967&oldid=12865

Sorry about the error and the omission and thanks again!

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: 16 September 2008 12:07
> To: Michael Schneider; Boris Motik; Zhe (Alan) Wu
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: Re: Small discrepancy between the OWL RL set and the RDF semantics document
> 
> I just realized: it may as simple as a change of term; is
> owl:disjointWith the new term for the old owl:disjointClasses? In which
> case it is a simple change in the rule document.
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Ivan Herman wrote:
> > Michael, Boris, Zhe
> >
> > (I am not sure who of you is responsible for this part),
> >
> > Table 4 of the profile document[1] contains rules for class axioms; it
> > includes:
> >
> > [[[
> > T(?c1, owl:disjointClasses, ?c2)
> > T(?x, rdf:type, ?c1)
> > T(?x, rdf:type, ?c2)
> >
> > =>
> >
> > False.
> > ]]]
> >
> > However the mapping to RDF[2] maps DisjointClasses(....) to
> >
> > _:x rdf:type owl:AllDisjointClasses
> > _:x owl:members T(SEQ CE1 ... CEn)
> >
> > and there is no vocabulary element owl:disjointClasses in [2], or in
> > [3]. I presume the current rule is a leftover from a previous version of
> > [1].
> >
> > I actually do not see any clause for AllDisjointClasses in [1] either,
> > but that may be intentional.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ivan
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs
> > [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-Based_Semantics
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2008 11:47:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC