W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2005

Re: RDF as a syntax for OWL

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:41:40 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20050106.174140.54912992.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: geoff@sover.net
Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu, www-rdf-logic@w3.org

From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Subject: RE: RDF as a syntax for OWL
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:42 -0500

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 7:34 AM
> > To: geoff@sover.net
> > Cc: bparsia@isr.umd.edu; www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: RDF as a syntax for OWL
> > 
> > 
> > From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
> > Subject: RE: RDF as a syntax for OWL (was Re: same-syntax extensions to
> > RDF)
> > Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 22:07:52 -0500
> > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org [mailto:www-rdf-logic-
> > request@w3.org]
> > > > On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 10:28 AM
> > > > To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Re: RDF as a syntax for OWL (was Re: same-syntax extensions

[...]

> > > Rgds,
> > >
> > > Geoff Chappell
> > 
> > Questions:
> > 
> > 1/ With the typo, it appears that your code done't work right for double
> >    negation.  Is this correct?
> 
> Yes, it's broken as is - a little pre-posting cleanup gone awry.
>  
> > 2/ Without the identify transforms, it appears that your code won't work
> >    for C & D.  Is this correct?
> 
> Yes. I'm missing several identity transforms as you point out. 
>  
> > 3/ How will your code handle
> > 
> > 	_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> > 	ex:p1 rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
> > 	ex:c1 rdf:type owl:Class .
> > 	_:x owl:onProperty ex:p1 .
> > 	-:x owl:someValuesFrom ex:c1 .
> > 	_:x owl:allValuesFrom ex:c1 .
> 
> As is, it will convert the complement of that restriction into two new
> restrictions.

Is your transform correct?  If so, make an argument for it.  For standard
syntax the problem doesn't arise, so there is no guidance to be had from
the literature.  

> I suppose the right thing to do would be to flag the restriction as
> malformed? If so, I imagine rules along the lines of these could be used:

Is it malformed?  This is part of the problem with using RDF as a syntax carrier. 

> infer {[rdf:type] ?r [ex:InvalidRestiction]} from 
> 	{[rdf:type] ?r [owl:Restriction]} 
> 	and not {[owl:onProperty] ?r ?p};
> 
> infer {[rdf:type] ?r [ex:InvalidRestiction]} from 
> 	{[rdf:type] ?r [owl:Restriction]} 
> 	and {[owl:allValuesFrom] ?r ?x}
> 	and {[owl:someValuesFrom] ?r ?y};
> 
> etc.

Can you ever determine that something is not malformed?  If so, provide
precise conditions for this and incorporate them into your code.  If not,
how can your code return anything? (The input *might* be malformed, after
all!)

> Then depending upon the needs of the graph consumer, the whole graph could
> be invalidated if it contains anything invalid or the particular invalid
> restriction could just be ignored.

> > 4/ How will your code handle
> > 
> > 	_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> > 	_:z rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> > 	_:y rdf:type owl:Class .
> > 	owl:intersectionOf _:x _:li .
> > 	_:li rdf:type rdf:List .
> > 	_:li rdf:first _:y .
> > 	_:li rdf:rest _:li2 .
> > 	_:li rdf:type rdf:List .
> > 	_:li2 rdf:first _:z .
> > 	_:li2 rdf:rest rdf:nil .
> > 	_:y owl:complementOf _:z .
> > 	_:z owl:onProperty ex:p1 .
> > 	_:z owl:someValuesFrom ex:c1 .
> 
> It would likely do something wrong ;-)
> 
> What should it do? It seems to me it could reasonably toss it out as a
> malformed restriction. I guess the difficulty is that the nnf rules must
> obviously preserve meaning wrt to the system that's interpreting the result
> graph... do all malformed restrictions have unambiguous meaning wrt owl
> semantics? Do any?

Again is this malformed?  If so, ... [see above].

> > 5/ How will your code handle
> > 
> > 	_:x rdf:type owl:Class .
> > 	owl:complementOf _:x _:x .
> 
> Do you mean this?
> 
>  	_:x rdf:type owl:Class .
>  	_:x owl:complementOf _:x .

Yes, of course.  :-)

> If so, nothing is emitted by the rules.

Why not?  Isn't this well-formed?  

> > 6/ How will your code handle
> > 
> > 	_:x rdf:type owl:Class .
> > 	ex:p1 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> > 	ex:r1 rdf:type owl:Restriction .
> > 	_:x owl:onProperty ex:p1 .
> > 	-:x owl:someValuesFrom ex:r1 .
> > 	ex:r1 owl:onProperty ex:p1 .
> > 	ex:r1 owl:someValuesFrom ex:c1 .
> 
> Is this another malformed example? If not, please highlight for me the
> relevant part of this example.

Again, this is part of the problem.  Is this malformed?  If so, why?  If
not, why not?  

> > Yes, I may have made the challenge harder than Bijan may have meant it,
> > but
> > these are the sorts of things that you do run into when you use an
> > unconstrained graph formalism for your syntax.
> 
> No disagreements here.
> 
> The smearing of higher-arity relations into triples is seemingly the source
> of much pain when trying to use RDF as a syntax for other languages (due to
> the fact that you can't really constrain the triples so that only valid and
> complete instances of the relation can be represented). 

Well, this is indeed part of the problem, but there are lots more, having
to do with the open-world flavour of RDF, the non-tree flavour of RDF, and
the triples-only flavour of RDF.  

> I'm not sure that
> represents the same problem when using RDF to represent incomplete knowledge
> (from one or more sources) - in fact it probably becomes a strength. 

Maybe, but part of the point is that syntax doesn't fit into any of RDF
strengths.

> Rdgs,
> 
> Geoff Chappell


peter
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 22:42:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:43 UTC