W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webont-comments@w3.org > November 2004

bug in RDF compatible semantics for owl:AnnotationProperty

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:08:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20041117.110843.80399015.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: mei@mi.fu-berlin.de
Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org

From: mei@mi.fu-berlin.de
Subject: maybe it is a bug for owl:AnnotationProperty
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:34:34 +0100

> Dear Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
> 
> hello,
> 
> i am reading your papers OWL (RDF-Compatible) MT Semantics
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/rdfs.html, and i found a very small bug about
> owl:AnnotationProperty.
> 
> it was mentioned as I(rdfs:comment) is in IOAP, and the subject-value of
> annotation properties is in IOT (namely owl:Thing).

[...]

> Now, the "wine" ontology has the rdfs:comment as one of owl:AnnotationProperty,
> but "wine" is an ontology not owl:Thing which should be disjoint with
> owl:Ontology in OWL DL interpretation. Of course, in OWL Full interpretation,
> it is OK :-)
> 
> maybe, Values for annotation properties could be much less unconstrained as:
>  owl:AnnotationProperty EXTi(e)<=(IOTuIX)x(IOTuLVi)
> 
> maybe, about the above, i made some stupid mistakes :-) if so, i am very very
> sorry for bothering you!
> 
> Thank you very much!
> 
> Best wishes,
> Sincerely yours, Jing Mei

I believe that you are correct.  I wonder how this bug managed to escape
attention for so long.

I believe that the appropriate correction is to expand the extension of
annotation properties even further, to include all the appropriate
syntactic categories.

   EXTi(e) <= (IOT u IOC u IDC u IOOP u IODP u IOAP u IOXP u IX) x (IOT u LVi)

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 16:00:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:29 GMT