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

Proposed response to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0047

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 16:18:13 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306251618.13662.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

This responds to both
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0047
and
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2003May/0051

I am not clear that I am the right person to send this, since it was a Jena 
team comment (which I had forgotten - I thought it was Ian's private 
comment).

He would like to see more explicit rationale for our design concerning 
OntologyProperty.

==

Hi Ian

After further reflection the WG has modified the rules in S&AS concerning 
owl:OntologyProperty.
In the S&AS editors draft:
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/syntax.html#2.3.1.3
we read:

axiom ::=
....
   | 'OntologyProperty(' ontologyPropertyID { annotation } ')'

which permits user defined ontology properties.

In the OWL Reference editors draft, this is recorded with these words:

http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed#Ontology-def
[[
NOTE: The ontology-import construct owl:imports and the ontology-versioning 
constructs owl:priorVersion, owl:backwardCompatibleWith and 
owl:inCompatibleWith are defined in the OWL vocabulary as instances of the 
OWL built-in class owl:OntologyProperty. Instances of owl:OntologyProperty 
must have the class owl:Ontology as their domain and range. It is permitted 
to define other instances of owl:OntologyProperty. 
]]

> Do the
> updated documents explain why both AnnotationProperty and OntologyProperty
> are needed?  

No, this would give them undue weight.
The reason is to ensure that all OWL DL entailments are also OWL Full 
entailments.

> ISTM that plurality of property types is potentially confusing
> to users of the language, especially if the differences between them are
> slim, and come down to nuances of the semantic treatment.

Yes, this is potentially confusing.

In summary we have accepted your comment that:
[[
This class does not seem to be referenced or
defined anywhere else in the specs (including in owl.owl), and it is not
clear what it is representing or what role it is playing.
]]
by adding text to OWL Reference.

Please let us know, cc-ing public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this
response is satisfactory.

Thanks for your comment

???
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 10:18:25 GMT

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