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

Re: mapping rule for InverseFunctionalProperty etc

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:19:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030916.121949.05214172.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: mapping rule for InverseFunctionalProperty etc
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:59:34 -0500

> On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 10:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> > From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> > Subject: mapping rule for InverseFunctionalProperty etc
> > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:59:12 +0300
> > 
> > > The mappjng rule for
> > > ObjectProperty( ID InverseFunctional )
> > > 
> > > =>
> > > 
> > > ID rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . 
> > >     [opt if one of the last three triples is included] 
> > > ID rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> > > 
> > > Does not appear to achieve the apparent desired effect.
> > > 
> > > Because while
> > > 
> > > eg:foo rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> > > 
> > > is hence a legal OWL Lite ontology, the following is not
> > > 
> > > _:a rdf:type owl:Thing .
> > > _:a eg:foo _:b .
> > > _:b rdf:type owl:Thing .
> > > eg:foo rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> > 
> > Agreed.  The translation rule for individualvaluedPropertyID should be
> > changed to make its first triple be optional if there is a triple in the
> > translation of the ontology that give the ID one of the three
> > more-specific OWL property types.
> > 
> > Again, this should be agreed on by the WG.
> > 
> > I believe that OWLP already acts in this modified manner.
> 
> Let's see if I understand this... the test-case-sketch above
> shows a difference between how OWLP is implemented and how
> are specs are written?

Correct.  OWLP is slightly too liberal in what it identifies as OWL DL.

> If that's the case, then yes, please, add it to the test suite
> and let's get a WG decision to make the change (the alternative--
> for the WG to adopt the test in such a way that confirms
> the existing design and says OWLP and Jeremy are wrong--seems
> silly.)

Agreed.

> Anybody care to guestimate what changes to the text of
> the other docs are needed?

I expect that zero bytes need to be changed.

> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/


peter
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:19:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:02 GMT