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

Re: annotations was Re: MINUES: Teleconference 30 Jan 2003

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:56:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030131.155659.10640266.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org


From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: annotations was Re: MINUES: Teleconference 30 Jan 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:12 +0100

> 
> 
> Peter wrote:
> > Solutions:
> 
> > 1/ Do nothing.
> ... and reopen 5.3 Semantic Layering 
> 
> since it was closed "provided 2 technical pieces of work can be completed"
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.3-Semantic-Layering
> 
> one of those being the correspondence theorem which is flawed in its premises 
> (that annotations can be ignored)
> 
> The theorem statement does not mention annotations
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/rdfs.html#theorem-1
> [[
>  Let T be the mapping from OWL ontologies in the abstract syntax to RDF 
> graphs. Let V' = VI + VC + VD + VOP + VDP be a separated OWL vocabulary. Let 
> K and Q be OWL abstract syntax ontologies with separated names over V' and 
> let V = V' ∪ VRDFS ∪ VOWL. Then it is the case that K entails Q if and only 
> if T(K) OWL DL entails T(Q). 
> ]]
> Q including an annotation not in K provides a counterexample.

The *previous* paragraph is the charm here.

	An OWL abstract ontology with separated names over a separated OWL
	vocabulary V' = < VI, VC, VD, VOP, VDP > is a set of OWL axioms and
	facts in the abstract syntax without annotations as in Section 2
	where <individualID>s are taken from VI, <classID>s are taken from
	VC, <datatypeID>s are taken from VD, <individualvaluedPropertyIDs>
	are taken from VOP, and <datavaluedPropertyID>s are taken from VDP.

> > 2/ Change the semantics document a whole lot.  This may take a while.
> >
> >    Several components to handle annotations would have to be added to
> >    the direct semantics interpretations, and incorporated into the
> >    semantic rules.  The correspondence proof would have to be
> >   overhauled as well.  I think that this can be done, but it is
> >   significant work.
> 
> ... I have already proposed a small inelegant fix [1], which you have sneered 
> at. I would value having my proposal demolished.

I don't see a solution there.  For example, how does this allow for
annotations on classes or properties in the direct semantics?

> Also, the correspondence proof needs to be overhauled. (see [2]), so that is 
> no new work.

The flaws in the proof have already been fixed.  

> > 3/ Remove annotations from the triple syntax for OWL DL and OWL Lite.
> >    This would be easy.
> 
> ... and edit out requirements document to exclude all annotations and things 
> needing annotations .... and get that through the W3C consensus process (not 
> just within but also outside the WG).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> [1] section headed: "OWL Lite/DL Entailment" in
>  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0523.html
> 
> [2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Jan/0424.html

peter
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 15:57:16 GMT

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