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

Re: OWL dot OWL file

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:27:16 +0100
Message-Id: <A2AA3123-D34A-4F75-94A4-B6D344394029@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Hi Michael,

What you have done seems very reasonable. Regarding the queries, I  
didn't have time to check every one but judging by the ones I did  
look at I will be more than happy to go with your suggestions.

One small point (that I think was already made by Peter). In a  
comment at the beginning of the file you say:

   We do not expect people to
   import this file explicitly into their ontology.
   People importing this file
   should expect their ontology to be an OWL 2 Full ontology.

I think that this could usefully be made stronger. Perhaps something  
like:

   This files should not, in general, be imported into OWL ontologies.
   Importing this file into an OWL 2 DL ontology will cause it to  
become an an OWL 2 Full ontology.

Thanks,
Ian


On 31 Jul 2009, at 19:23, Michael Schneider wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I made a last(?) addition to my proposal, matching what I said  
> below. But
> since you all haven't been very happy with my recent proposals (or  
> did not
> comment at all), the changes are only *additional* comments, so  
> there is *no
> change* to the existing triples for the terms.
>
>
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php? 
> title=Owl2DotOwlDevel&diff=24952&
> oldid=24892>
>
> For each term, I have added a comment started by "#?" which tells  
> whether I
> would keep the current definition, or would propose a change, which  
> change,
> and why. In essence, the proposed change does not change anything
> semantically for OWL 2 Full, but it would be a bit more plausible  
> from the
> OWL 2 DL point of view, I think (although, it doesn't really make  
> things
> "more correct" for OWL 2 DL formally, only a bit more plausible, after
> all...).
>
> Well, at least I tried it...
>
> Michael
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Schneider
> Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2009 12:29 PM
> To: 'Ian Horrocks'; Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org; sandro@w3.org
> Subject: RE: OWL dot OWL file
>
> 1) The original owl.owl had triples where some built-in classes being
> subclasses of owl:Class instead of rdfs:Class and the like, and  
> also the
> domains and ranges of the built-in properties were often classes  
> from OWL,
> not RDFS. My current proposal deviates from this, basically only using
> classes from the RDF(S) vocabulary, except for owl:Thing/ 
> owl:Nothing and the
> top/bottom properties. This very much simplified things, but it may  
> well be
> seen as a wrong way to go by some. I could spend some work on  
> finding out
> what classes and properties should reuse the OWL classes instead,  
> and this
> would then also have an effect on my new list of axiomatic triples  
> in the
> RDF-Based Semantics. But I need a decision by the WG whether we should
> either go the old owl.owl way (often referring to OWL classes) or the
> simplified way (mainly referring to RDF(S) classes only).
>
> 2) The original owl.owl (and now the proposal) lists the four  
> annotation
> properties from RDFS (rdfs:label and friends). I would like to drop  
> them
> from the owl2.owl, since (1) they are not part of the OWL  
> vocabulary, (2)
> they are basically redundant (the terms are already covered by  
> rdfs.rdfs,
> which is even imported into owl.owl), (3) there is no precedence in  
> rdf.rdf
> and rdfs.rdfs that terms from other namespaces are reused, and (4)  
> from a
> "resolvable URI" point of view they would be invisible, since they  
> have a
> different base URI. In any case, a decision on this would have no
> consequence for the RDF-Based Semantics, which *does* list these  
> triples,
> but other triples for terms of the RDFS vocabulary terms as well,  
> which are
> not mentioned in owl.owl.
>
> --
> 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
> ====================================================================== 
> =
>
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 14:27:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 August 2009 14:27:57 GMT