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

Re: owl:Class in class expressions - substantive

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:39:08 +0100
Message-ID: <3E2FB83C.9010001@swi.psy.uva.nl>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I agree with Jeremy. I like the new mapping rules. Some worries of mine 
about inconsistency between examples in Ref and Guide and the mapping 
rules have been removed.
Guus


Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
A. Th. Schreiber, SWI, University of Amsterdam,
http://www.swi.psy.uva.nl/usr/Schreiber/home.html
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 04:44:28 GMT

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