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

Re: draft response for LC comment 51 RM1 and 62 JM1

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:42:23 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0902200942n1cdbbbbfi418297afc725cf8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: ivan@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Is the only problem loops in the definitions? Could it be fixed by
another global restriction? I'm concern that "we didn't think much
about it" might not be good enough. Better to have thought about it
and ruled it out beforehand, or to think about it now in response to
the comment?

-Alan

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> Hmm.  OWL 2 DL is the functional syntax including the global restrictions.
>
>
> How about:
>
>
> Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax.  Named data
> ranges can cause problems in the direct semantics if there are loops in
> the definitions.  Because of this kind of problem the WG did not do much
> exploration of adding named data ranges to the functional syntax.
>
> In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that
> corresponds to a data range, so in the above triples, the blank node
> with label _:x could be replaced with a regular node with IRI
> ex:GreaterThan65.  This IRI could be used just as any other
> datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full.
>
>
> peter
>
>
>
>
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:34:36 +0100
>
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> I believe that your changes are less accurate and less true than the
>>> original.  I tried to be very careful to craft a response that was
>>> accurate no matter how any naming issues are resolved.  In particular,
>>> it is not a good idea to refer to the direct semantics here.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to understand... OWL 2 DL (though nowhere defined in the
>> current documents:-( is equal to OWL 2 with Direct Semantics, isn't
>> (modulo the necessary restrictions). ??
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>>> Subject: Re: draft response for LC comment 62 JM1
>>> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:47:35 +0100
>>>
>>>> Until our naming issue is solved, the exact relationships of OWL DL,
>>>> Full, FS are still a bit fuzzy and not 100% clear in the current
>>>> documents. Also, your first sentence also suggests some sort of a
>>>> primary role of syntax over DL:-(
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest a slight re-write? Like:
>>>>
>>>> [[[
>>>> Some naming of data ranges could be permitted in the Direct Semantics of
>>>> OWL 2, but one has to be careful about creating data range loops. The WG
>>>> did not explore adding this functionality and hence adding this extra
>>>> syntax and extra complication to the functional syntax.
>>>>
>>>> In the RDF syntax, and hence in the RDF bases semantics of OWL 2, it is
>>>> of course possible to "name" a node that corresponds to a data range.
>>>> This IRI could be used just as any other datatype/class IRI in the RDF
>>>> based semantics OWL 2 with no problems.
>>>>
>>>> So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional
>>>> syntax is concerned.
>>>> ]]]
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Ivan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> [Draft Response for LC Comment 62] JM1
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Jonas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your message
>>>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Feb/0010.html
>>>>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your comment is related to another last-call comment
>>>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0059.html
>>>>> and this response is the essentially same as the relevant portion of the
>>>>> response to that comment, archived at
>>>>>   ....................
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Naming data ranges is not possible in the functional syntax, and thus is
>>>>> not possible in OWL 2 DL.  Some naming of data ranges could be
>>>>> permitted in OWL 2 DL, but one has to be careful about creating data
>>>>> range loops.  The WG did not explore adding this extra syntax and extra
>>>>> complication to the functional syntax.
>>>>>
>>>>> In OWL 2 Full, it is of course possible to "name" a node that
>>>>> corresponds to a data range.  This IRI could be used just as any other
>>>>> datatype/class IRI in OWL 2 Full with no problems.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are not missing anything, at least so far as the functional
>>>>> syntax is concerned.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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 17:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 February 2009 17:43:00 GMT