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

Re: ISSUE 5.3 Semantic Layering

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:54:49 +0200
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCEMMCBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


As a straw man, how effective would the following change to S&AS be:

rewrite 5.3 so that:

OWL Full neither affirms or denies that owl:Thing = rdfs:Resource,
owl:ObjectProperty = rdf:Property owl:Class = rdfs:Class (where = is
equality of class extension).

Specifically replace:

[[
OWL Full augments the common conditions with conditions that force the parts
of the OWL universe to be the same as their analogues in RDF. These new
conditions strongly interact with the common conditions. For example,
because in OWL Full IOT is the entire RDF domain of discourse, the second
comprehension condition for lists generates lists of any kind, including
lists of lists.

Definition: A OWL Full interpretation of a vocabulary V is an OWL
interpretation as above that satisfies the following conditions.

IOT = RI
IOOP = PI
IOC = CI
]]

by
[[
Definition: A OWL Full interpretation of a vocabulary V is an OWL
interpretation as above
]]

This seems to fix the specific counter-examples.
Moreover it makes OWL Full and OWL DL (as in 5.4) closer; and the
correspondence theorem is already stated as an IFF between section 5.4 model
theory and section 3 model theory; which makes an IFF between the modified
5.3 and section 3 seem more plausible.

Would that work?
How much baby goes out with the bath water?

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 27 June 2003 08:55:15 GMT

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