- From: Kevin D. Keck <kdkeck@lbl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 14:09:24 -0700
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
Sure, I'll move the naming discussion to the rdf-logic list, but that was only the first part of my comment. The second was that I, at least, was confused about whether (in OWL-DL) owl:Class'es are owl:Thing's. I thought the idea is that they're not, but then I came across the "Class instances are all OWL objects" statement (AS&S, Sec 5.2, see below). What does this mean? Does this mean owl:Class'es _are_ owl:Things? Or does it mean they're both in the range of owl:ObjectProperty (contrary to the range given)? And if not, then what subclass of Property includes rdf:type? Some class there's no name for? -- Kevin D. Keck http://vimss.lbl.gov/~kdkeck/ 510-486-4856 On Thursday 17 July 2003 16:41, you wrote: > Kevin- > thanks for your comment - the WG spent a long time considering > different names for these things - but in each case the alternatives > had some community that would think we meant something different. > However, the charter by which our WG was set up said: > > "If in this process the Working Group finds solutions that are agreed > to be improvements over solutions suggested by DAML+OIL, those > improved solutions should be used." > > and, unfortunately, in this case nothing was found that was agreed to > be an improvement over the D+O solutions, and thus in the end we kept > those names which had been used successfully in a large number of > ontologies (see http://www.daml.org/ontologies for 240+ examples). > If you have specific suggestions, or simply want to see if the > discussion exposes better names, please send email to > www-rdf-logic@w3.org and if we see a wide consensus that some other > names are better, we would certainly consider that as evidence that > we might reopen this issue, but barring that, we will keep the widely > used DAML+OIL names. > Please respond, cc-ing public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this > response is satisfactory. > -Jim > > >While most of the spec. has been tightened up nicely, I'm afraid the names > > of the two main OWL Property classes are still terribly confusing, and > > may obscure a significant ambiguity. > > > >First off, a natural English speaker's intuition is that something named > >"ObjectProperty" would be the class of Properties of Objects, i.e., whose > >_domain_ was (a subset of) Object. This is doubly confusing, because in > > the RDF spec "object" is defined as the _value_ of a predicate/Property. > > In fact, this is actually triply confusing, because in RDF "object" > > refers to the value of _any_ Property, specifically including literal > > values. As if to admit this problem, the AS&S actually uses > > "individualvaluedPropertyID" as the name of the corresponding abstract > > syntax element. This name is much better, but unfortunately it is not > > clear to me that it is entirely accurate either (see below). > > > >Perhaps even more pernicious is the name "DatatypeProperty", which is used > > to refer not even to Properties whose values are rdfs:Datatype's, but > > rather to Properties whose values are rdfs:Literal's. The name used in > > the AS&S ("datavaluedPropertyID") for the corresponding abstract syntax > > element is only barely tolerable; obviously the much more transparent > > names would be LiteralValuedProperty and literalValuedPropertyID. > > > >Lost in all this is an apparent ambiguity in the spec. Despite having no > >formal definition of the term "object", section 5.2 of the AS&S > >(http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.2) asserts (in the second > >table, "Characteristics of OWL classes, datatypes, and properties") that > >"Class instances are all OWL objects." However, section 5.4 > >(http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/rdfs.html#5.4) insists that IOT and > > IOC must be disjoint. Thus, clearly "OWL objects" must refer to the union > > of IOT and IOC, right? Only, returning to 5.2, interpretations of > > owl:ObjectProperty asserted to be contained in IOTxIOT. Well, which is > > it? Are Classes Objects, i.e., is IOC a subset of IOT, or not? > > > >And if not, then what type of Property are rdf:type, rdfs:range, > > rdfs:domain, etc. in the OWL universe? > >-- > >Kevin D. Keck > >http://vimss.lbl.gov/~kdkeck/ > >510-486-4856
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 17:09:35 UTC