- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:24:51 +0200
- To: "Ian Davis" <lists@iandavis.com>, "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>
>-----Original Message----- >From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Ian Davis >Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:53 PM >To: Dan Brickley >Cc: Jiří Procházka; Toby Inkster; Michael Schneider; Linked Data >community; Semantic Web; Pat Hayes >Subject: Re: RDF Extensibility > >2010/7/6 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: >> 2010/7/6 Jiří Procházka <ojirio@gmail.com>: >>>> >>>> It would have a meaning. It would just be a false statement. The >>>> same as the following is a false statement: >>>> >>>> foaf:Person a rdf:Property . >>> >>> Why do you think so? >>> I believe it is valid RDF and even valid under RDFS semantic >extension. >>> Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and >classes >>> URI can be many things. >> >> It just so happens as a fact in the world, that the thing called >> foaf:Person isn't a property. It's a class. >> > >I think that is your view and the view you have codified as the >authoritative definition that I can look up at that URI, but there is >nothing preventing me from making any assertion I like and working >with that in my own environment. If it's useful to me to say >foaf:Person a rdf:Property then I can just do that. However, I >shouldn't expect that assertion to interoperate with other people's >views of the world. > >Ian If one has some constraint like this in mind, one should consider trying to make it explicit when creating the ontology. In the cited messages above, I am reading: "Maybe OWL says something about disjointness of RDF properties and classes." Well, this is /not/ the case, but one could have explicitly stated: foaf:Person rdf:type [ owl:complementOf rdf:Property ] . as an additional axiom in FOAF (and likewise for other classes, if desired), or more generically: rdfs:Class owl:disjointWith rdf:Property . Of course, this is not in OWL DL, but FOAF is outside OWL DL, anyway, due to its inverse-functional data properties. However, the above is in OWL Full (as FOAF is), and also within the scope of the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules. So, under these entailment regimes, if one asserts the statements: foaf:Person rdf:type rdfs:Class . foaf:Person rdf:type rdf:Property . this then leads to a semantic inconsistency (with either of the two alternatives given above). And there are a number of reasoners around which are able to detect these kinds of inconsistencies, e.g.: <http://www.ivan-herman.net/Misc/2008/owlrl/> Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider Research Scientist, Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider ======================================================================= FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts, Az 14-0563.1, RP Karlsruhe Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus =======================================================================
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 10:25:40 UTC