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

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

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 20:10:36 +0200
Message-ID: <49F5F51C.6010708@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Michael,

you seem to agree with their proposal and with Peter that what they 
propose is fine. I do not see why we should pursue this issue further 
with them (remember, we are talking about an informative section of the 
POWDER document anyway!).

As for the general comment on the semantic condition: I see that you 
have sent a private comment on the issue (and, with my activity lead hat 
on, I am happy you did:-) and I hope they will pursue this. But I 
believe that this is then separate from the comment referred to in this 
mail. In other words, I still believe we as a WG can answer them with an 
'o.k.' and move on...

Cheers

Ivan

Michael Schneider wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 4:02 PM
>> To: ivan@w3.org
>> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Invitation for review of POWDER documents (Last
>> Call)]
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Hm, I now also believe that it should really be "some" instead of "all".
> But, huh, this really isn't obvious from the text there!
> 
> I believe the idea is that every resource r may or may not have a property
> hasIRI, telling the resource's IRI, e.g.
> 
>   ex:foo wdrs:hasIRI "http://www.example.org/foo"^^xsd:anyURI
> 
> Now, the "some" restriction exactly captures all those resources r that on
> the one hand have such a hasIRI property attached, and where on the other
> hand the value of that property equals one of the strings matching the
> regular expression PATTERN. 
> 
> On the contrary, the "all" restriction would also capture all those
> resources that do not have a hasIRI property attached at all. Certainly not
> what they want.
> 
> I suggest that we ask them to clarify the intended meaning of "hasIRI". I
> also believe that the semantic condition presented in §4.6 is broken, see my
> today's private comment (it's mainly on section §4.3, but the problem is
> basically the same):
> 
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-powderwg/2009Apr/0012.html>
> 
>> peter
> 
> Michael
> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
> =======================================================================
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor,
> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
> =======================================================================

-- 

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 18:10:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 18:10:53 GMT