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

Minutes from editors meeting (13:45 - 15:30)

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 20:56:47 +0000
Message-ID: <15973.4879.375293.210883@excalibur.oaklands.net>
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org

Jeremy proposes to allow anonymous descriptions at the top level in
the abstract syntax so that unused descriptions are legal in the RDF
syntax for OWL DL.

One possible solution is to introduce new declarations for them;
another solution, requiring less change to the AS is to allow
sameClassAs axioms with only 1 class.

Everyone seems to agree that we would like graphs containing
"meaningless junk", but which are otherwise DL, to be treated as
DL. The question is, what answer would a validator give when asked "is
this valid DL (yes/no)"?

Currently, such graphs are in full. One suggestion is to examine
semantics of document and allow arbitrary junk provided it was
semantically meaningless. This seemed highly undesirable as it would
force semantic analysis in order to determine syntactic class of an
ontology.

PROPOSAL: allow equivalentClasses with a single description, which
maps to the description. Result is that ontologies with "orphan"
descriptions are in DL. They are NOT in Lite.


Jeremy & Peter engage in incomprehensible techno-babble.


Discussion of meta-properties (e.g., priorVersion). Intention seems to
be that range and domain of priorVersion is ontologies (?), but what
if it is used between classes? Should we conclude that they are
ontologies? Is this useful and should it be allowed? Should be add
explicit domain and range constraints so it can't be used with
anything but ontologies?

PROPOSAL: that owl:priorVersion, owl:backwardsCompatibleWith and
owl:incompatibleWith are of syntactic category "ontologyPropertyID" in
the abstract syntax, and to add the following production:

   directive ::= Annotation(ontologyPropertyID ontologyID)

The domain and range of these properties are owl:Ontology in both
owl.owl and owl full.


PROPOSAL: that owl:versionInfo is an annotationPropertyID that may be
used like any other annotationPropertyID.


ACTION: Guus to discuss the possibility of removing subProperty
relationship between owl:priorVersion and owl:backwardsCompatibleWith
and owl:incompatibleWith

ACTION: Guus to correct ontology domain and range constraints for
owl:imports in owl.owl.

ACTION: Jeremy to generate domain and range constraints test cases for
owl:imports
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2003 15:54:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT