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

Re: S&AS: rdfs compatible semantics - solipsistic!

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 10:26:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20030325.102636.05848158.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: S&AS: rdfs compatible semantics - solipsistic!
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:14:40 +0100

> Resent-From: www-webont-wg@w3.org
> Subject: S&AS: rdfs compatible semantics - solipsistic!
> From: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:14:40 +0100
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
> Resent-Message-Id: <200303251314.h2PDEddL024817@frink.w3.org>
> Importance: Normal
> Resent-Sender: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further reviewing my earlier notes:
> 
> 
> Critical:
> 
> 1: owl:Property is not in the vocabulary and should not appear in the
> document.
> Suggest that this can be substituted with IOP in most cases.

Hmm.  owl:Property has been in S&AS for months now.  Pat introduced it as a
convenience.  Removing it was a bit of a pain, as IOP was defined in terms
of owl:Property, but it is now done.

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

Done.


> Question:
> 
> In OWL Full should there be some stronger conditions on IOP and IOOP e.g.
> 
>   IOOP = IOP
> 
> 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
> solipsistic.

Yes, this needs to be changed.  I believe I introduced this problem when
the RDF model theory was changed to have LV <= R.  I made what I thought
was a benign change that made it much easier to describe OWL Full.

I think that in OWL Full it suffices to say that IOOP = P<sub>I</sub>,
which I have done.

peter
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 10:28:08 GMT

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