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

Re: owl:Class in class expressions - substantive

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 21:08:21 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030122.210821.10853436.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: owl:Class in class expressions - substantive
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:15:49 +0100

> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > 
> > This msg proposes a substantive change in the mapping rules.
> > I will make later comments of a more editorial/bug-fixing nature.
> > 
> > The focus is on class expressions e.g. a unionOf.
> > 
> > With the current mapping rules the following is an OWL DL document (modulo
> > declarations etc)
> > 
> > DocA
> > ====
> > <owl:Class rdf:ID="u">
> >    <owl:sameClassAs>
> >      <rdf:Description>
> >        <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> >            <owl:Class rdf:ID="a"/>
> >            <owl:Class rdf:ID="b"/>
> >        </owl:unionOf>
> >       </rdf:Description>
> >     </owl:sameClassAs>
> > </owl:Class>
> > 
> > 
> > The following, which I believe better follows standard DAML+OIL idiom, is
> > not:
> > 
> > DocB
> > ====
> > <owl:Class rdf:ID="u">
> >    <owl:sameClassAs>
> >      <owl:Class>
> >        <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
> >            <owl:Class rdf:ID="a"/>
> >            <owl:Class rdf:ID="b"/>
> >        </owl:unionOf>
> >       </owl:Class>
> >     </owl:sameClassAs>
> > </owl:Class>
> > 
> 
> The DocB type of OWL examples are all over Guide and Ref, so yes, the 
> mapping rules should cover them.
> 
> > The relevant mapping rule is:
> > 
> > unionOf(description1 … descriptionn)
> > 
> > =>
> > 
> > _:x owl:unionOf T(SEQ description1…descriptionn) .
> > 
> > 
> > Three options are:
> > A) leave us as
> > B) change to
> > 
> > unionOf(description1 … descriptionn)
> > 
> > =>
> > 
> > _:x owl:unionOf T(SEQ description1…descriptionn) .
> > _:x rdf:type owl:Class .
> > 
> > C) add above rule as an alternative

I did C, and also now allow

 DocD
 ====
 <owl:Class rdf:ID="u">
        <owl:unionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
            <owl:Class rdf:ID="a"/>
            <owl:Class rdf:ID="b"/>
        </owl:unionOf>
 </owl:Class>


> Options B & C are acceptable to me, with a preference for B as this 
> seems the least work.
> 
> Guus
> 
> > 
> > ==========
> > Effect
> > 
> > A) DocA is OWL DL, DocB is OWL Full
> > B) DocB is OWL DL, DocA is OWL Full
> > C) both DocA and DocB are OWL DL
> > 
> > I argue that (B) has the additional advantage of being easier to articulate,
> > e.g.:
> >   "Within OWL Lite and OWL DL all nodes must have a type."
> > 
> > So I propose B, and similarly for the other class expression rules.
> > (Issuette what type should a datarange have?)
> > 
> > Jeremy

peter
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 21:08:32 GMT

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