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

Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:12:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030227.161245.85751659.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: syntax task force - differences between the two approaches
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 12:02:40 +0100

> 
> 
> A single test case that explains two of the substantive differences is:
> 
> <eg:a> owl:UnambiguousProperty <eg:b> .

In the current version of the document, the above triple is not an OWL DL
ontology.  

> Under the current S&AS editors draft this entails (in DL)

> owl:UnambiguousProperty rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .

> and
> 
> <eg:a> rdf:type owl:Ontology.

There may have been a brief time when this was true, but it was a bug.

> This breaks semantic layering (neither entailment holds in OWL Full), and
> contradicts our earlier decision that using the uri owl:UnambiguousProperty
> is an error
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#approvedIssue-I3.4-UnambiguousProperty
> 
> 
> Jeremy

There is an issue here.  

If there is to be owl:AnnotationProperty and/or owl:Ontology, then the
direct semantics should not support entailments that allow triples of the
form

	? rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty .
or
	? rdf:type owl:Ontology .

to be inferred from the absence of other information even if this is
strictly-speaking not non-monotonic.

peter
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 16:12:58 GMT

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