W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: [Fwd: Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last Call)]

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:02:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090427.100225.80145818.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ivan@w3.org
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
What about the some restriction?  Was our response not entirely correct?

It looks as if a some restriction would give the extra semantics that
they appear to want, but I am having trouble reconstructing the correct
context.

peter


From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last Call)]
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:23:32 +0200

> My intention is to answer 'yes' to all the points, ie, that the WG is
> satisfied. Any objections to that?
> 
> Ivan
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last Call)
> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:12:40 +0300
> From: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
> To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> CC: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>,	W3C OWL Working Group
> <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
> References: <49D9D592.9030201@philarcher.org> <49E6E3DA.3080501@w3.org>
> 
> Ivan, W3C-WG, hi.
> 
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> 
>> - The reference should be to XSD1.1 and not XSD2:
>>      http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/
>>
>> - 'At the time of writing, the OWL-2' should say "OWL 2" (ie, no  
>> hyphen)
>>
>> - The reference to OWL 2 currently points to the OWL 2 Primer. We  
>> think
>> it would be better if it pointed at the (new) OWL 2 Document Overview:
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/
> 
> All updated, thank you.
> 
>> - The semantic condition refers to rdfs:Resource for the domain of
>> hasIRI. Although the description refers to an extension of the RDF
>> semantics, it makes use of, say, owl:DatatypeProperty. Hence it may be
>> stylistically better to refer to owl:Thing.
> 
> I am leaning towards removing the domain triple altogether, as
> it is obviously gratuitous.
> 
>> - The encoding of the condition in the example has several problems,
>> partially due to some recent changes in OWL 2. These are:
>>
>>    - namespace changes (OWL 2 refers to xsd:pattern directly and not
>> owl:pattern (OWL 2 reuses rdfs:Datatype instead of owl:datarange)
> 
> Updated.
> 
>>    - we also think that the type of restriction used is inappropriate.
>> owl:hasValue should refer to a single individual and not to a
>> datatype/datarange. Based on the rest of the POWDER semantics, what  
>> you
>> probably have to use is owl:allValuesFrom, but this is something you
>> have to decide, of course
> 
> Shouldn't it be owl:someValuesFrom to guarantee that the specified
> value exists? Since hasIRI is functional, it also guarantees that all
> values are also as expected. I am interested in OWL WG's reaction to
> this.
> 
>>    - the RDF mapping of facets is based on a list of blank nodes
>> instead of the approach used in the current code
>>
>> The first example (the second has similar structure) should look
>> something like:
>>
>> <owl:Restriction>
>>  <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="....#hasIRI"/>
>>  <owl:allValuesFrom>
>>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>>      <owl:onDatatype rdf:resource="...#string"/>
>>      <owl:withRestrictions rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>        <rdf:Description>
>>          <xsd:pattern rdf:datatype="...#string">PATTERN</xsd:pattern>
>>        </rdf:Description>
>>      </owl:withRestrictions>
>>    <rdfs:Datatype>
>>  </owl:allValuesFrom>
>> </owl:Restriction>
> 
> Indeed, modulo the owl:allValuesFrom vs. owl:someValuesFrom issue.
> 
> Best,
> Stasinos
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Monday, 27 April 2009 14:02:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 14:02:23 GMT