- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 11:52:41 +0100
- To: Steffen Staab <staab@uni-koblenz.de>
- Cc: Christoph LANGE <ch.lange@jacobs-university.de>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Christoph, If you're not particularly concerned with staying in OWL 2 DL, you can define a property chain that will allow you to infer the proper annotations. Your rule below, can be defined as: :fooProp owl:propertyChainAxiom (:inheritsMetadata :fooProp) . This property chain is certainly not as generic as the rule because one such chain needs to be defined for each annotation property in your knowledge base (that's why I renamed ?property to :fooProp). Why is this not OWL 2 DL? Because property chains cannot range over annotation properties, and they are not allowed to contain cycles (which is clearly the case here). >> This would, however, easily cause trouble in an RDF world, as >> 1. the two resources might be of different types, which might be disjoint in >> an OWL ontology, but what if ?resource inherits rdf:type from >> ?otherResource ? The property chain defined above will not range over the rdf:type property (as your rule does) >> 2. what if an inherited property is an OWL FunctionalProperty but has >> different values on ?resource and ?otherResource ? Then a reasoner will infer owl:sameAs relations between the 'metadata'. >> 3. what if the metadata explicitly stated in the scope (e.g. the same XML >> document) of ?otherResource are fine, but somebody else externally writes a >> triple ?otherResource :evilProperty "value" ? Then you get to the issues pointed at by Steffen. Cheers, Rinke --- Dr Rinke Hoekstra AI Department | Leibniz Center for Law Faculty of Sciences | Faculty of Law Vrije Universiteit | Universiteit van Amsterdam De Boelelaan 1081a | Kloveniersburgwal 48 1081 HV Amsterdam | 1012 CX Amsterdam +31-(0)20-5987752 | +31-(0)20-5253497 hoekstra@few.vu.nl | hoekstra@uva.nl Homepage: http://www.few.vu.nl/~hoekstra
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 10:53:12 UTC