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

FW: OWL dot OWL file

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 20:23:50 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0015DD8C8@judith.fzi.de>
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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 Friday, 31 July 2009 18:24:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 31 July 2009 18:24:32 GMT