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

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

From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:23:09 -0400
Message-ID: <00ad01c23a1f$5d9331c0$0201a8c0@ne.mediaone.net>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Dan Connolly wrote:

>
> Sorry, that example didn't make the point...

To clarify, we want to be able to make the sorts of conclusions:

email:cust24 owl:sameIndividualAs phone:cust34.

given,
FunctionalProperty(fred:customer)
and
fred:order24 fred:customer email:cust24.
fred:order24 fred:customer phone:cust34 .

wouldn't something like this be the case under _any_ implementation of
FunctionalProperty?

(I am assuming that owl:sameIndividualAs is our term for '=')

Jonathan:

>
> On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 22:31, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >
> > 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:
>
> Trying again...
>
> -- 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 order entry system --
> fred:Order rdf:type db:Table;
>   db:key fred:customer.
>
> -- some data from email about orders --
> fred:order24 fred:customer emailRecords:cust543.
>
> -- some data from phone calls about orders --
> fred:order24 fred:customer phoneRecords:cust34.
>
> ==?==>
>
>   emailRecords:cust543 owl:sameIndividualAs phoneRecords:cust34.
>
>
> > 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/
> office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
> see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2002 08:38:52 GMT

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