- From: Atanas Kiryakov <naso@sirma.bg>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 17:28:39 +0200
- To: <martin.hepp@deri.org>, "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>, "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>, "Marc" <marc@geonames.org>, <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, "Ilya Zaihrayeu" <ilya@dit.unitn.it>, <MaLLi@cn.ibm.com>, <OWLIM-discussion@ontotext.com>
Hi Martin, I personally find this part of the OWL specification a bit confusing also. Luckily, this is irrelevant for OWLIM as it is not a DL reasoner, by design. Thus, it is not trying to verify weather something fits in OWL-DL or not. The semantics support by OWLIM is 100% defined through axiomatic triples and entailment rules. The users of OWLIM can check and edit these rules, if necessary. In the pre-defined rulesets, we have tried to provide standard interpretation of all the primitives. A proof of this is that OWLIM passes all the entailment tests, relevant to the specific ruleset. Still, full compliance appears irrational in the case of OWL-Lite and DL. As I had the chance to comment several times, we find that the DL constraints are inadequate for a wide range of applications. In a number of cases, the DL-based OWL layering makes simple things complex. The issue in subject provides yet another example of this. Although I have a clue regarding the the formal reasons for these constraints, this does not make me convinced that those are appropriate. Regards, Naso ---------------------------------------------------------- Atanas Kiryakov Head of Ontotext Lab, http://www.ontotext.com Sirma Group Corp, http://www.sirma.bg Phone: (+359 2) 9768 303; Fax: 9768 311 ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Hepp" <martin.hepp@deri.org> To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Cc: "Mark van Assem" <mark@cs.vu.nl>; "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>; "Bernard Vatant" <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>; "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>; "Marc" <marc@geonames.org>; <public-esw-thes@w3.org>; "Ilya Zaihrayeu" <ilya@dit.unitn.it>; <MaLLi@cn.ibm.com>; "Atanas Kiryakov" <naso@sirma.bg> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: Re: OWL species and subproperties of rdfs:label > Dear Alan: > I had assumed the same. But Ilya Zaihrayeu (CC) pointed me to the fact > that this was not covered by OWL DL, following the section 7.1. definition > that the object of an annotation property can only be a data literal, a > URI reference, or an individual, but NOT another class. And in fact, while > OWLIM loads the respective ontology without any problem, IBM's Minerva > complains that the ontology modules using those annotation properties are > in OWL Full (thanks to Li Ma from IBM Beijing for testing!). > > If you want to check the issue locally it: the respective statements are > in the eclassOWL modules > - eclassClassesProperties_51en.owl and > - eclassPropertiesValues_51en.owl. > > Both are available at http://www.heppnetz.de/eclassowl > > Who is right? OWLIM or Minerva? :-) > > Best > Martin > > PS: This is no general problem with eClassOWL; it just affects these two > optional modules that can be used even without any reasoner. > > > >>> an OWL Light or DL ontology you propose to create one class per > taxonomy > >>> category and then link them using an annotation property. But as it > seems > >> to > >>> follow from the OWL reference document, there is a certain restriction > on > >>> the object of annotation properties in OWL DL. Namely, it can only > (see > >>> section 7.1). Could you describe how you resolved this issue? > > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> My understanding is that annotation property assertions are completely >> ignored by a DL reasoner, i.e. there are no semantics of annotation >> properties, as far as OWL DL is concerned. Regarding annotation >> properties having values which are classes, at least as far as Pellet is >> concerned, the following is considered OWL Lite. >> >> Namespace(ex = <http://example.com/#>) >> Ontology(<http://example.com/#> >> AnnotationProperty(ex:p ) >> Class(ex:c partial ) >> Class(ex:d partial annotation(ex:p ex:c )) >> ) >> >> -Alan >> >> >> On Jan 12, 2007, at 5:32 PM, Martin Hepp wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear all: >>> A related question: >>> >>> >Well, all that is *very messy* indeed. Looks like that the semantics >>> of >annotation subproperties is defined nowhere, and randomly >>> implemented >in tools. OWL specification just says: this is not DL any >>> more, go >figure what it means. I'm not even sure that a subproperty of >>> an >annotation property is an annotation property. Is this entailed by >>> RDFS >semantics? >>> >>> I was surprised to read in the OWL reference in section 7.1 [1] that it >>> is not allowed to use annotation properties for capturing relationships >>> between one class and another class, e.g., to define an annotation >>> property "foo:relatedClass" that can be used to capture that a >>> particular class is related to another one. >>> >>> In fact, I used such a construct in a helper module for eclassOWL [2] >>> but had to learn that importing this module makes the ontology be OWL >>> Full, with all known disadvantages. >>> >>> Is there any reason for this constraint? Is this maybe related to the >>> problem you are discussing? I had expected that there is no constraint >>> on the type of object for an annotation property. >>> >>> >>> best >>> martin >>> >>> [1] "The object of an annotation property must be either a data literal, >>> a URI reference, or an individual." >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#Annotations >>> >>> [2] http://www.heppnetz.de/eclassowl >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-mail: martin.hepp@deri.org >>> web: http://www.heppnetz.de >>> skype: mfhepp >>> office: +43 512 507 6465 >>> >>> Check eClassOWL, the first real-world e-business ontology >>> for products and services in OWL at >>> http://www.heppnetz.de/eclassOWL >>> >>> ----------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-mail: martin.hepp@deri.org >>> web: http://www.heppnetz.de >>> skype: mfhepp >>> office: +43 512 507 6465 >>> >>> Check eClassOWL, the first real-world e-business ontology >>> for products and services in OWL at >>> http://www.heppnetz.de/eclassOWL >>> >>> >>> Mark van Assem wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> The behaviour that you describe below does not occur in the Triple20 >>>> tool [1] that I frequently use. It's more of a triple viewer than a >>>> full blown editor like Protege (editing is not as nicely supported), >>>> and it only partially supports OWL DL, but it doesn't do any funny >>>> things. What you stored is what you see, and what you added/removed is >>>> exactly what is in the stored file. It also has a category for >>>> resources that do not have an rdf:type, which is handy when debugging. >>>> Cheers, >>>> Mark. >>>> [1] http://hcs.science.uva.nl/projects/Triple20/triple20.html >>>>> SWOOP 2.3 just ignores such subproperty declarations when loading the >>>>> file, and they are removed when you save the file. >>>>> >>>>> Protégé 3.2 behaviour is more tricky. The GUI just does not show such >>>>> properties but they are not removed from the RDF source by the Jena >>>>> backend, and stay in the RDF file when you save. But moreover, Protégé >>>>> insists that every owl:AnnotationProperty must be either >>>>> owl:DatatypeProperty or owl:ObjectProperty, and adds the former by >>>>> default. Which is IMO a very strange interpretation of OWL >>>>> specification. >>>>> >>>>> So, to sum it up, suppose I declare the following in the original >>>>> ontology >>>>> >>>>> <owl:AnnotationProperty >>>>> rdf:about="http://www.example.org/ontology#altName"> >>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"/> >>>>> </owl:AnnotationProperty> >>>>> >>>>> Loading and saving in SWOOP 2.3 yields back >>>>> >>>>> <owl:AnnotationProperty >>>>> rdf:about="http://www.example.org/ontology#altName"/> >>>>> >>>>> The subproperty declaration is deleted >>>>> >>>>> Loading and saving in Protégé 3.2 yields back >>>>> >>>>> <owl:AnnotationProperty >>>>> rdf:about="http://www.example.org/ontology#altName"> >>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"/> >>>>> <rdf:type >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty"/> >>>>> </owl:AnnotationProperty> >>>>> >>>>> The DatatypeProperty class is added >>>>> >>>>> Now if I don't want to presume the property type and just declare >>>>> >>>>> <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.example.org/ontology#altName"> >>>>> <rdfs:subPropertyOf >>>>> rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label"/> >>>>> </rdf:Property> >>>>> >>>>> SWOOP just ignores this declaration altogether, and the property is >>>>> killed when saving. >>>>> Protégé does not show the property in the GUI, but Jena saves it in >>>>> the original form. >>>>> >>>>> Well, all that is *very messy* indeed. Looks like that the semantics >>>>> of annotation subproperties is defined nowhere, and randomly >>>>> implemented in tools. OWL specification just says: this is not DL any >>>>> more, go figure what it means. I'm not even sure that a subproperty of >>>>> an annotation property is an annotation property. Is this entailed by >>>>> RDFS semantics? >>>>> >>>>> a:myProperty1 rdfs:subPropertyOf b:yourProperty2 >>>>> b:yourProperty2 rdf:type ex:SomePropertyType >>>>> >>>>> Does the above entails in RDFS >>>>> >>>>> a:myProperty1 rdf:type ex:SomePropertyType >>>>> >>>>> ?? (I guess yes, but maybe I'm wrong) >>>>> >>>>> If yes, then applied to >>>>> >>>>> skos:prefLabel rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:label (by SKOS >>>>> vocabulary) >>>>> rdfs:label rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty (by OWL >>>>> specification) >>>>> >>>>> entails >>>>> >>>>> skos:prefLabel rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty >>>>> >>>>> ... which is not the kind of entailment Protégé or SWOOP seem to >>>>> support. >>>>> >>>>> Do I miss something or is this really Terra Incognita in RDF semantics >>>>> world? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for enlightnments. >>>>> >>>>> Bernard >>>>> >>> >>
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 15:32:03 UTC