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

Re: [LC Response] To Zhe Wu Re: OWL 2 LC Comments

From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:01:07 -0500
Message-ID: <49AEFA23.50701@oracle.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: alanzwu@yahoo.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org
Hi Peter,

Thanks for the response. I will pass it on and let the WG know if Oracle 
is happy with this response.

Zhe


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Dear Zhe,
>
> Thank you for your message
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html>
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
>
> Your message contains multiple sections, affecting more than one
> document, and will thus generate multiple replies.  This response is for
> sections 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, which affect the mapping from the
> functional syntax to RDF graphs as well as some issues in the Profiles
> document.
>
> 1. very minor printing issues - OWL 2 Profiles printout (using Firefox)
>    has a weird "span" code in Section 6.3 DataIntersectionOf :=
>    'IntersectionOf' '(' <span class="nontDataRange</span> 
>
> This has been fixed:
>
> The diffs are:
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=17615&oldid=17330>
>
>
> 5. In the RDF mapping document, is it possible to keep OWL 2 vocabulary
>    a bit smaller by replacing owl:minQualifiedCardinality with the
>    existing owl:minCardinality?  Same idea applies to
>    owl:qualifiedCardinality, owl:maxQualifiedCardinality.  After all,
>    owl:onClass is there to differentiate the qualified vs.
>    non-qualified case.
>
> The problem here has to do with monotonicity of the RDF semantics.
> Consider a qualified min cardinality translation, i.e., something like
> MinCardinality(2 ex:p ex:C), which translates into
>
> 	_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction 
> 	_:x owl:minQualifiedCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 	_:x owl:onProperty ex:p
> 	_:x owl:onClass ex:C
>
> If this suggestion was made the translation would instead be
>
> 	_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction 
> 	_:x owl:minCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger
> 	_:x owl:onProperty ex:p
> 	_:x owl:onClass ex:C
>
> However, this contains the three-triple translation of MinCardinality(2
> ex:p), and The RDF semantic will pick this up, and augment the meaning
> of the above four triples with the meaning for MinCardinality(2 ex:p).
>
> For minimum cardinality things are not so bad, because MinCardinality(2
> ex:p ex:C) implies MinCardinality(2 ex:p).  However for Cardinality and
> MaxCardinality this is not the case, and an incorrect meaning will be
> determined.
>
> This kind of problem has been known ever since the original Web Ontology
> Working Group.  The RDF mapping document does not contain all the
> rationale for the various choices in the mapping, so no change is
> envisioned in response to this part of your comment.
>
>
> 2. very minor typo
>     RDF mapping document has a typo in Section 2.2. s/auhtor/author/.
>
> 6. In Section 2.2 of RDF mapping document, are we missing a translation?
>    It is unclear how the second example in 2.2 is translated into
>    triples.  The AnnotationAssertion in Table 1 has three parameters and
>    that example has only two parameters for AnnotationAssertion.
>
> The second example in Section 2.2 is
>
> 	AnnotationAssertion( a:Peter
> 	    Annotation(
> 	       Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane )
> 	       rdfs:label "Peter Griffin"
> 	    )
> 	) 
>
> This is not syntactically correct.  The example was not correctly
> changed from a previous syntax for annotation assertions.  The correct
> example is
>
> 	AnnotationAssertion( 
> 	       Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane )
> 	       rdfs:label a:Peter "Peter Griffin"
> 	) 
>
> namely a singly-annotated annotation assertion.
>
> Thank you for pointing out this error.  You also point out the
> mis-typing of a:author in the example.
>
> The document has been changed to fix these editorial mistakes.  The diffs
> can be found at
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Mapping_to_RDF_Graphs&diff=18172&oldid=18155>
>
> 3. Table 2 in Section 4.1 of OWL 2 Profiles is inconsistent with Section 
>    4.2.3. Table 2 omits a few constructs.
>
> Table 2 was completed with missing information; here is the diff:
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18098&oldid=17615>
>
> 7. For the RL/RDF rule set, it is useful to mention that it is not a 
>    minimal set. Some rules are redundant.
>    Also, it will be useful to add rules like
>    ?p1  subPropertyOf  ?p2  and     ?p2  subPropertyOf  ?p1  ==> ?p1 
>    equivalentProperty  ?p2
>    (same thing applies to subClassOf)
>
> The set of rules was extended with the ones for rdfs:subClassOf and
> rdfs:subPropertyOf that you suggested. Also, the description of the
> profile was extended with a note that the rule set is redundant. Here is
> the diff: 
> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/index.php?title=Profiles&diff=18102&oldid=18099>
>
> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
> <mailto:public-owl-wg@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
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2009 22:02:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 4 March 2009 22:02:06 GMT