W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: possible changes to abstract syntax and direct semantics to support annotations and fix problem with imports

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:11:59 +0100
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF0ECCCAE4.557C632E-ONC1256CC8.00622ED8-C1256CC8.00698000@agfa.be>


[...]

> > > > but then that would mean that to have a non empty individual
> > > > all appropriate annotations have to in the KB, right?
> > >
> > > It means that to satisfy
> > >
> > > Individual(annotation(x y)  annotation(x z) type(Person))
> > >
> > > there has to be annotation triples of the form
<a,I(x),I(y)><a,I(x),I(y)>
> > > and <a,I(x),I(z)> for some a.
> >
> > Maybe I'm confused...
> > Suppose the naming authority of na: creates an ontology in
> > which there is a individual na:x that has 2 annotation triples.
>
> Well, I'm not really interesting in anything that starts with a
presumption
> of a ``nameing authority'', as this has no place in either the RDF or OWL
> model theory.
>
> > Suppose we are now given a graph with the triple na:x :y :z.
> > but not the annotation triples.
> > Would that graph entail na:x :y :z ?
>
> Further, I don't see nearly enough information here to determine what it
> going on.  If you want to pose entailment questions, you are going to
have
> to put them in the form of one RDF graph entailing another or an OWL
> abstract ontology or set of directives entailing another.

does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph

  :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :a rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :b rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :c rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :d rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :x :a :b.                        # annotation triple
  :x :c :d.                        # annotation triple

with the following OWL Lite graph

  :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :x :y :z.

OWL Lite/DL entail

  :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :x :y :z.


> > > > > > On the other hand, the so called annotation "triples"
> > > > > > (NOT to confuse with RDF triples) are so
> > > > > > weak that no entailement other than belonging to A
> > > > > > can be done with them (seems to me).
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this was the entire idea.
> > > >
> > > > Assuming that is the idea, then when such
> > > > triples are exchanged in RDF/XML how can
> > > > we ever know that they are special?
> > >
> > > You wouldn't have to.
> >
> > I don't understand that.
> > Suppose we have an annotation triple :x :y :z
> > and we know that :y is a subproperty of :v
> > would that entail :x :v :z ?
>
> Again, what is the desired entailment?  I don't think that this is even
> allowable in the abstract syntax.

does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph

  :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :x :y :z.                        # annotation triple

with the following OWL Lite graph

  :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :y rdfs:subPropertyOf :v.

OWL Lite entail

  :x rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty.
  :z rdf:type owl:Thing.
  :x :v :z.


[...]

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 14:13:21 GMT

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