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

Re: semantics document revised

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 19 Sep 2002 09:04:10 -0500
To: "Peter F. "Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1032444250.2991.4203.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-09-11 at 11:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I fixed a couple of problems in my semantics document, and reordered some
> of the material.

I wonder if it's essential to restrict these this way:

|owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:subClassOf owl:Property .
|owl:SymmetricProperty rdf:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty .
|owl:InverseFunctionalProperty rdf:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty .

Can we either
  (a) not restrict these this way.
    - note that folks can still declare their properties
    to be both a FunctionalProperty and an owl:ObjectProperty.
  (b) specify analogs that aren't restricted.


i.e. I'm still interested in replies to...

 SEM/TEST: restricted complement, unrestricted InverseFunctionalProperty
 Dan Connolly (Fri, Sep 06 2002) 
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Sep/0075.html


Likewise for disjointFrom...


        1. The class extension of owl:Thing is a subset of IR, does not
           contain any RDF or OWL structural resources, and is disjoint
           from the extensions of classes, properties, lists,
           collections, statements, and literals. 
            1. for each name N in the rdf:, rdfs:, and owl: namespaces,
               IS(N) is not in ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) 
            2. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from
               ICEXT(IS(rdfs:Class))
            3. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from
               ICEXT(IS(rdf:Property))
            4. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from ICEXT(IS(rdf:List))
            5. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from
               ICEXT(IS(rdf:Collection))
            6. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from
               ICEXT(IS(rdf:Statement))
            7. ICEXT(IS(owl:Thing)) is disjoint from LV

It seems highly ironic, to me, that we have to state that informally.
If owl:disjointFrom were specified over the whole domain of
discourse, we could write, formally...

  owl:Thing owl:disjointFrom rdfs:Class.
  owl:Think owl:disjointFrom rdf:Property.

etc.



-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2002 10:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:52 GMT