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

Re: LANG: need to CLOSE Issue 5.6 Imports as magic syntax

From: Jeff Heflin <heflin@cse.lehigh.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 18:05:32 -0500
Message-ID: <3DC065BC.C1CAC61E@cse.lehigh.edu>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the suggestion. I have some comments below:

"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> 
> I endorse Jeff's proposal, with the following changes.  I'll start out with
> the abstract syntax, as it is much easier to see what is going on here:
> 
> 1/ OWL abstract syntax ontologies can include Imports(<URI>) directives.
> 
> 2/ The closure of an OWL abstract syntax ontology is obtained by taking its
>    directives and replacing any Imports directives by the directives of the
>    OWL ontology found at the URI that is the argument of the Imports
>    directives, unless the URI has already been so used in which case the
>    Imports directive is simply removed.  This is done until there are no
>    Imports directives remaining.

Since your definition explicitly includes "OWL ontology found at the URI
that is the argument," we have to be explicit about the meaning of a URI
that cannot be dereferenced. What would you suggest here? I'm hesitant
to simply say such expressions are meaningless. For example, it seems
dangerous to say that if I commit to an ontology, but its server goes
down, anybody is free to assume that there are no addtional consequences
of my statements, even though there may be vital contract conditions or
privacy information, etc. contained within the unavailable ontology.

>    2a/ Other kinds of annotations are simply removed.

What do you mean by "other kinds of annotations" here?

> 3/ An OWL intepretation of an OWL abstract syntax ontology is defined as an
>    OWL interpretation of its closure.

Assuming we work the bugs out of 2, I could live with this (I still
prefer soemthing strictly based on entailment).

> 4/ An OWL ontology entails an OWL axiom if all interpretations of the
>    ontology are OWL interpretations of the axiom.  One OWL ontology entails
>    another if all interpretations of the first ontology are interpretations
>    of the second.

Do we need this last bit here (one OWL ontology entails another)? It
seems to be what leads to the problem in your example below.

> Note that this does not *require* an OWL agent to actually construct the
> closure to compute entailment.  The OWL agent could do whatever it wanted,
> as long as the correct result was obtained.
> 
> I have a modification of the semantics document that incorporates these
> (minor) changes to Imports for the abstract syntax and its direct semantics.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are problems when the RDF syntax is considered.
> 
> 1/ What is the syntax for imports (and other annotations)?
> 
> 2/ If the syntax results in n-triples, then these n-triples will interfere
>    with entailment.
> 
>    For example, does the OWL ontology
> 
>    http://foo.ex/bar
>         <http://foo.ex/bar#John> <http://foo.ex/bar#loves> <http://foo.ex/bar#Mary> .
> 
>    entail
> 
>    http://foo.ex/baz
>         <http://foo.ex/baz#> [owl:imports] "http://foo.ex/bar" .
> 
>    This is why I suggested that imports be made an attribute of the enclosing
>    rdf:rdf (or other) element.
> 
> peter
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 18:05:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:53 GMT