W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > August 2002

SEM/GUIDE: subclasses of classes of Properties? (5.3)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 01 Aug 2002 22:31:19 -0500
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1028259080.28231.94.camel@dirk>

I don't think I need reasoners to be able
to conclude that something's a FunctionalProperty,
but these formalisms that make the OWL
vocabulary act more like syntax than
terms have another drawback that just occured to me.

Consider:

-- db ontology about tables --
db:Table rdf:type rdfs:Class.
db:key rdfs:domain db:Table;
  rdfs:range db:KeyProperty.

my:KeyProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:FunctionalProperty.

-- Fred's ontology about his products --
fred:Products rdf:type db:Table;
  db:key my:productID.

fred:bananas fred:productID "76456".

-- Jose's ontology about his products
jose:platanos owl:equivalentTo fred:bananas.

==?=>

 jose:platanos fred:productID "76456".


I've been trying to figure out how the
abstract syntax treats cases like this...

If I understand correctly, I can't write
things like

  SubClassOf(sub=db:KeyProperty,
             super=owl:FunctionalProperty)

because " the abstract syntax form does not mention any of the URI
references that are the normal expansion of the following names: ... ".

-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7

I think a lot of users expect the OWL vocabulary
to work just like rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
and rdfs:subClassOf: they're names, and they
refer to objects in the domain of discourse,
and they constrain interpretations.

That's the way this model theory works...

   An OWL model theory layered on RDF
   v 1.2 2002/06/28 17:41:12
   http://www.w3.org/2002/06/owlsem55.txt

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 23:30:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:51 GMT