# Re: Review of Semantics Documnt

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:13:37 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030129.151337.68312830.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>


From: "Jeff Z. Pan" <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Review of Semantics Documnt
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 16:45:49 -0000

> Peter,

[...]

> > > - section 5.2, "R_I contains elements corresponding to all possible OWL
> > > descriptions and data ranges", if there exists l, a sequence of x1,...xn
> > > over IOT OR LV, then there exist y with y\in CEXT(I(rdfs:Class)),
> <y.l>\in
> > > EXT(I(owl:oneof)): I think this rule should be moved to section 5.4, and
> > in
> > > here (section 5.2) should be replaced by two, one for IOT and the other
> > for
> > > LV, otherwise if x1,...,xn are mixed objects/values, it will cause
> trouble
> > > to OWL/DL.
> >
> > I believe that there is no problem here. These elements of
> > rdfs:Class would not cause a problem, as they cannot particate in
> > most OWL/DL constructs.  However, the recent changes to the RDF
> > model theory make a better version possible.
>
> I notice that you did replace the original rule with two, one for IOT and
> the other for LV (so I was right).  Now I understand why we don't have to
> move it to section 5.4 - the condition "IOT=R_I" for OWL automatically
> extend these rules.
>
> Therefore it might be a good idea to mention in section 5.4 and/or 5.2 that
> although section 5.2 gives a common portion of semantics of OWL/DL and
> OWL/FULL, this common portion has slightly different meaning in OWL/DL and
> OWL/FULL due to the three conditions for OWL/FULL.

Good idea.  I've added this, plus an example.

> > > **4. Some suggestions:
> > >
> > > - section 5.2 "Relationships between OWL classes", it is kind of weird
> to
> > > have  two (or more than two) tables as conditions without any
> > explanations.
> > > Instead, it might be better if we explain that the relationships between
> > OWL
> > > classes may be divided into subset relationships (the first table) and
> > > membership relationships (the second table).
> >
> > This has all been reorganized.
>
> I notice that you moved the table about rdfs:domain and rdfs:range to the
> first position. It is a good move, so that additional conditions on RDFS are
> firstly introduced, then other conditions on OWL. However, since IOP, IOC
> and IDC aren't clearly defined so far, shouldn't we add "The meaning of IOP,
> IOC and IDC can be found in the following table." behind the first table?

Good idea.  Done.

> Jeff

peter

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 15:13:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:51 UTC