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

S&AS: rdfs compatible semantics - solipsistic!

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:14:40 +0100
To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>

Further reviewing my earlier notes:


1: owl:Property is not in the vocabulary and should not appear in the
Suggest that this can be substituted with IOP in most cases.

2: owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty,
owl:SymmetricProperty should be specified as subsets of owl:ObjectProperty.

Otherwise we have:

 <x> rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .

OWL DL entails (section 5.3.1):

 <x> rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty .

while this entailment violates name separation it seems unwise not to block

Suggest changing condition:
 then c?CEXTI(SI(E)) iff c?IOOP?IODP and
to not include IODP (except for FunctionalProperty).


In OWL Full should there be some stronger conditions on IOP and IOOP e.g.


The current document does not support "natural" OWL Full entailments like:

<a> <p> <b> .

does not OWL Full entail:

<a> rdf:type _:x .
_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:x owl:onProperty <p> .
_:x owl:hasValue <b> .

because outside owl:ObjectProperty and owl:DatatypeProperty it is
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 08:14:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:52 UTC