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

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

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 14:16:26 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f03bb1f9758c744@[10.0.0.229]>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org

I think this is ready for sending.  I am happy for it to go out in 
your name, but if not I will be willing to send it as chair
  -JH



At 4:18 PM +0300 6/25/03, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>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
>
>???

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 14:16:38 GMT

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