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

Re: WOWG: minutes Jul 10 telecon

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 01:18:53 +0200
To: "Jim Hendler <hendler" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Cc: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>, WebOnt WG <www-webont-wg@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCFA3E2D5.6234E9A9-ONC1256D60.007D2FAE-C1256D60.0080129F@agfa.be>


Jim Hendler wrote:
>At 10:21 PM +0200 7/10/03, Jos De_Roo wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>  > 22. RDFCore Comments on OWL Reference
>>>  > ACTION: Frank van Harmelen to respond to one open element
(rdfs:Class
>>>  > vs. owl:Class)
>>>
>>>  WITHDRAWN; transferred to PatH
>>>
>>>  ACTION PatH: draft rationale for rdfs:Class vs. owl:Class situation
>>>  (less controversial than last time)
>>
>>I was joining late and missed the disicussion; my bad
>>What I was also trying to say at the end of the telecon
>>(but had no chance due to sound prloblems) was that
>>I am stuck at the following:
>>
>>When D is a consistent OWL Lite/DL document then
>>it is not necessarily a consistent OWL Full document
>>
>>for example the document
>>
>>owl:Thing owl:oneOf _:x.
>>_:x rdf:first eg:a.
>>_:x rdf:rest _:y.
>>_:y rdf:first eg:b.
>>_:y rdf:rest rdf:nil.
>>
>>seems to be DL consistent but Full inconsistent.
>>
>>We try to make our assumptions explicit in a "global" sense
>>(using URI's, triples, implications and some such)
>>and I can't see those for owl:Class and owl:Thing
>>(seems to me that everybody could mean it's own local thing)
>
>Jos et al -
>  I'm a bit confused on the issue of full inconsistent, in part
>because I haven't been tracking the RDF Core semantics -- supposing I
>did the following in RDF
>
>rdf:resource rdf:type eg:a.
>
>or - suppose I said:
>
>rdf:resource owl:equivalentTo owl:nothing.
>
>
>these would surely cause problems as well, wouldn't they?  They seem
>to be syntactically legal RDF - does the semantics rule them out in
>some way?  If not, wouldn't our documents where we change owl:Thing
>(in Full) be he equivalent of changing rdf:resource since they are
>equivalent?  Guess what I'm really asking what "Full inconsistent"
>means in this sort of case...

I meant to say "as an OWL Full document it is not consistent"
(see also in Test for various otest:InconsistencyTest cases)
and indeed your example

rdfs:Resource owl:sameAs owl:Nothing.

is also such a case (which we can prove).

Now, having an OWL document that is both consistent
and inconsistent is something that I must object to
(in fact I am trying to make sense of owl:Class and
owl:Thing as "global" W3C owned URI identifiers...)


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 19:19:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT