Re: question about DL/Lite semantics + agenda request

[...]

> but ...
>
> while
>
> > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> <bar> ) )
> > AnnotationProperty( <a> )
> > Class( <bar> )
> >
> does not now
> > entail
> >
> > AnnotationProperty( <a> )
> > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> individual() ) )
>
> we have that
>
> T(
> > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> <bar> ) )
> > AnnotationProperty( <a> )
> > Class( <bar> )
> )
> OWL Full entails
> T(
> > AnnotationProperty( <a> )
> > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> individual() ) )
> )
>
> because the individual() item is transformed into a bnode (with type
> owl:Thing?) and the type triple is trivially true, so that the OWL Full
> contentful part is:
>
> <foo> <a> <bar> .
> entails
> <foo> <a> _:b .
>
> which is true in RDF.
>
> This seems to be another instance of the "layering bug?" to which you
say:
>
> > if an entailment holds in OWL DL then it holds in OWL Full,
> > not vice versa.
>
> IMO it is worth highlighting this to the WG, and ensuring that the other
> documents capture this.
>
> for example, TEST needs to change to make it clear that an OWL Full
> consistency checker and an OWL DL consistency checker may get different
> results on a DL document.
>
> That's not good.

Right, and this one can't be resolved
by being agnostic about the extensions
of owl:Thing and owl:Class, at least
not that I can see.

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/