- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@cs.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:14:59 +0100
- To: David Osumi-Sutherland <djs93@gen.cam.ac.uk>
- Cc: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owled@w3.org
On 13 Aug 2012, at 12:09, David Osumi-Sutherland wrote: > Hi Ian and Bijan, > On 7 Aug 2012, at 15:33, Bijan Parsia wrote: > >> On 7 Aug 2012, at 10:28, Ian Horrocks wrote: >> >>> Dear David, >>> >>> According to the spec (http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-manchester-syntax/), it should be possible to translate OWL 2 FS into OWL 2 MS. Translating a GCI with a complex expression on the LHS requires the introduction of a new class name in an axiom that makes it equivalent to the relevant expression: >>> >>> "Some axioms that become part of a frame in the Manchester syntax do not need to have a name for the frame, e.g., a SubClassOf axiom between two complex descriptions, so the construction below cannot be directly used. To transform these axioms to the Manchester syntax, take a fresh name and turn the axiom into two axioms, one that makes the new name equivalent to the first piece of the axiom and the other the axiom with the sub-construct replaced by the new name. This would turn a SubClassOf axiom into an EquivalentClasses axiom plus a SubClassOf axiom." >>> >>> Is this a problem for you? >> >> This results in a technically non-equivalent ontology and doesn't roundtrip sensibly through tools like Protege. >> >> So, not ideal... > > I agree with Bijan that making new named classes for this is not ideal. Isn't avoiding making named classes kind of the point of GCIs? I also agree that it isn't ideal -- I just wanted to make sure that everyone is clear about that fact that translation of arbitrary OWL 2 ontologies into MS is *possible*, even if the mechanism for dealing with GCIs is not ideal. > Alternative proposals to follow shortly. OK. Regards, Ian > > Cheers, > > David >> >> Cheers, >> Bijan. >
Received on Monday, 13 August 2012 11:15:23 UTC