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

Re: comments on ASS

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:38:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030113.093856.28087981.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Subject: Re: comments on ASS
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:32:06 +0100

[...]

> > OWL Lite has had defined classes from the beginning.   If the Guide
> > indicates otherwise, it needs to be fixed.
> 
> So, this is a legal OWL Lite axiom according to the AS&S. If, so we have 
> to correct this in the Guide.
> 
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="TexasThings">
>    <owl:sameClassAs>
>      <owl:Restriction>
>        <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#locatedIn" />
>        <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#TexasRegion" />
>      </owl:Restriction>
>    </owl:sameClassAs>
> </owl:Class>
> 
> Note that this only holds for restrictions. Set operators or enumeration 
> in this type of axiom would be non-lite.

Yes, the above is legal OWL Lite.

> >>The second comment came up when I was revising the Reference document 
> >>section on classes. In the Guide we see RDF/XML class axioms such as:
> >>
> >><owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine">
> >>   <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> >>     <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" />
> >>     <owl:Restriction>
> >>       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" />
> >>       <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" />
> >>     </owl:Restriction>
> >>   </owl:intersectionOf>
> >></owl:Class>
> >>
> >>As I understand it the abstract syntax only allows axioms
> >>of the form:
> >>   <description> <relation> <description>
> >>where <description> should be a class name, a restriction or any of the 
> >>set-operation constructs, and <relation> should be subClassOf, 
> >>sameClassAs, or dinjointWith.
> > 
> > 
> > The Abstract Syntax only allows class axioms of the form
> > 
> > Class name modality descriptions
> > 
> > which have different translations depending on the modality and the number
> > of descriptions.  Some of these produce owl:sameClassAs; some don't.
> 
> Yes, but the three Class(..) mapping rules alwats produce either a 
> subClassOf, a sameClassAs or a disjointWith triple. The RDF/XML example 
> I gave does not. So, the problem I have remains.

In the current mapping rules (as of some time before 12 January) it is
possible to produce 

	 ex:Classa owl:sameClassAs  _:x .

or

	 ex:Classa rdfs:subClassOf  _:x .

or

	ex:Classa owl:intersectionOf _:y .

where _:x can be any description and _:y can be any description list.


> >>A final comment about the presentation: the ASS document often uses the 
> >>term OWL/DL, where it actually means OWL/DL and OWL/Full.
> >>Please make this clear. The difference is only valid for the semantics 
> >>sections. BTW: the asbtract should also mention OWL/Full.
> > 
> > 
> > I think that AS&S is fairly clear on this, and does not use DL where Full
> > is meant.  If you have any specific cases, I'll fix them.
> 
> As I said: mention OWL Full in the abstract, and replace OWL/DL with 
> OWL/DL+Full in all the syntax sections.

The abstract syntax is for OWL/Lite and OWL/Full only, so there should be
no mention of OWL/Full until Section 5, which, I believe is the case.  I
will add OWL/Full to the abstract.


peter
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 09:39:11 GMT

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