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

Re: draft response for LC comment 32 CO1

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:33:06 +0100
Message-ID: <499E6AC2.8030006@w3.org>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Well... although what you say is technically true, I would not find it
unreasonable if some characteristic _examples_ would be added to the
profile document for both cases that Chime refers to. This tough
rebuttal is a little bit to brisk for my taste, and we should have some
more explanation in our documents in my view. (Whether this is in the
profile or somewhere else like the primer is of course a different issue!)

I just came up with some things that we could add:

- For his first comment, we could, eg, refer to the fact that arbitrary
RDF graphs may include statements on the otherwise reserved vocabulary
with all kinds of funny consequences, or that they would allow defining
functional datatype properties whose consequences are a bit unpredictable.

- An example of the (missing) consequences due to the missing RDF(S)
axiomatic triples and some of the entailement rules is that

rdf:_i rdf:type rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty . (axiomatic rule)
meaning that
rdf:_i rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:member . (rdfs12 entailement rule)

If these were around, an OWL RL user could handle container membership
more easily with those rules.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> [Draft Response for LC Comment 32:] CO1
> Dear Chimezie,
> Thank you for your message
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0039.html
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.  
> Arbitrary RDF graphs can include constructs that have surprising
> consequences.  The reasons for these are many and varied, including
> effects on the "syntax" of OWL 2.  Because there are so many ways in
> which the rules could incorrect, the working group has decided not to be
> more explicit in the introduction to OWL 2 RL.
> There are an infinite number of RDFS axiomatic triples, so including
> them all in the OWL 2 RL rules does not directly lead to an effective
> rule implementation.  There are some RDFS rules that produce
> consequences that are not relevant to the conclusions guaranteed by
> Theorem PR1.  Listing all the "deficiencies" is not particularly easy,
> and would probably only confuse the issue.  The working group has
> therefore decided not to be more explicit in the preamble to Theorem
> PR1.
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. 
> Regards,
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group 
> No trees are known to have been harmed in the preparation of this
> response.


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 Friday, 20 February 2009 08:33:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:09 UTC