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

Re: Problems with OWL 1 tests

From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 12:15:11 +0100
Message-ID: <492f2b0b0908040415j5d9d588anea5724a8b7115d53@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Peter,

>> 20. WebOnt-someValuesFrom-001 (no species, no status)
>> I am not sure about this one. It seems the conclusion ontology is
>> messed up: it seems to want to use a blank node, but the RDF seems
>> incorrect to me. The test has an invalid namespace for the semantics.
>
> This appears to be an attempt to test that OWL Full reasoners don't do a
> very stupid thing that some OWL Full reasoner might want to do, namely
> from
>        r <= E p c
> and
>        i in r
> conclude
>        p(i,c)
>
> I don't see any blank node stuff in the conclusion, by the way.
>
> peter

The test implicitly uses a bank node. It contains:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="premises001#i">
        <first:p>
           <first:c />
         </first:p>
    </rdf:Description>
with p an object propery and c a class name (declared in the premise),
which is parsed into the FSS axioms (namespaces omitted)
ObjectPropertyAssertion(p i_:genid1)
ClassAssertion(c_:genid1)
To me that seems like what is intended. We have a description about
the individual i saying that it has some p sucessor which is in c, but
it does not use existential quantification, but rather an anonymous
individual. HermiT gives the correct answer here, but I am still not
sure whether this is the right way to state it in OWL DL with direct
semantics.

Birte

-- 
Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 306
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
Oxford
OX1 3QD
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283529
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 11:15:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 August 2009 11:15:56 GMT