W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > October 2009

Re: ISSUE: OWL-DL compatibility

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:52 +0200
Message-ID: <4AE01F44.1070609@inf.unibz.it>
To: kifer@cs.sunysb.edu
CC: RIF WG Public list <public-rif-wg@w3.org>

> In today's telecon I was asked to reanimate the issue of OWL compatibility,
> which was discussed 1 month ago.
> Here is the relevant message:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0017.html
> The current situation is a bug, IMO. If it isn't a bug then at least that part
> of the document is very unsatisfactory and obscure. Jos proposed 3 solutions:
> 1- leave things as they are, assuming that # and ## are not of interest
>    to users of RIF-OWL DL combinations
> 2- explain the use of # and ## in the document (this would certainly not
>    be a substantive change, so we should not run into procedural problems)
> 3- define the semantics of # and ## in RIF-OWL DL combinations in a
>    similar fashion as in RIF-RDF combinations: a one-to-one correspondence
>    between # and OWL class membership statements and implication between ##
>    and OWL subclassing.
> The easiest for him would be to do nothing (1), thus leaving things
> unsatisfactory and obscure. His next choice is (3), which is also my choice and
> the "right thing to do."  (3) stretches things a little, but it can be argued
> that it is a simple fix.

In my earlier e-mail to Michael referred to I did not say what my
preference is among the mentioned options.  I guess arguments can be
made for all three options, so in fact I do not have a strong
preference, but I do have a concern about option (3): implementation
might be harder.  If, for example, implementation is done through
embedding in other rules system, like the embedding of RIF-OWL2RL
combination in the appendix of the document, quite a few rules need to
be added for the ## construct.
In particular, for every pair of distinct class names (A,B), we need to
add the rule:

Forall ?x (?x[rdf:type -> B] :- And(?x[rdf:type -> A] A##B))

This means adding a quadratic number of rules.

Dealing with # is easy: in the mapping of RIF DL-document formulas to
RIF documents [1] we simply map a#b to tr'(b)(a). Clearly, we would
restrict b in formulas a#b to constant symbols.


> Solution (2) is more work. It fixes the obscurity aspect, not the
> unsatisfactory aspect of the definitions. So, (3) seems like the best way to
> proceed.
> Solution (3) still leaves some problems, which are unrelated to the above
> issues. In the current semantics, subclassing in RIF implies subclassing in
> OWL/RDF, but not vice versa.
> In this regard, I would like to point to my follow-up message
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0019.html
> Here I proposed a stronger semantics, which fixes this non-entailment problem.

Michael proposed the following semantics:

{(A,B) | A rdfs:subclassOf B and A != B on the RDF side}
                = {(A,B) | A##B on the RIF side}

I feel that this would take us out of Horn, even when considering Simple
entailment, because implementation would require (classical) negation.
At least, that is the only way I current see how this could be
implemented. As we know, classical negation in the body amounts to
disjunction in the head, so we would end up adding the following rule to
the embedding of RDF-RDF combinations:

Forall ?x, ?y (Or(?x##?y ?x=?y) :- ?x[rdfs:subClassOf -> ?y])

For RIF-OWL DL combinations such a semantics is even more problematic,
because subclass in OWL DL means subset relation between class
extensions, so the condition would look something like (X^C is the class
extension of X):

{(A,B) | A^C subset B^C and A^C != B^C on the RDF side}
                = {(A,B) | A##B on the RIF side}

(Actually, we will need to apply some tricks here, since A and B are not
constants on the OWL side, but I guess we can come up with a definition
that kind-of achieves this semantics)

A formula implementing the => direction of the condition for a pair of
class names A,B would look something like (again, negation in the body
becomes disjunction in the head):

Forall ?x (
     And(Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> B] :- ?x[rdf:type -> A])
         Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> A] :- ?x[rdf:type -> B])))
  Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> B] :- ?x[rdf:type -> A]))

So, I would not be in favor of extending either the semantics of RDF or
the semantics of OWL DL combinations with such a condition.

Best, Jos
> This would certainly be a substantive change semantically (although not
> significant textually). If we don't have the energy to do it this time,
> maybe for RIF 1.1.
> michael

Jos de Bruijn            debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224         http://www.debruijn.net/

Received on Thursday, 22 October 2009 09:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:47:57 UTC