- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 09:39:24 +0200
- To: <nathan@webr3.org>
- Cc: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>, <semantic-web@w3.org>
>-----Original Message----- >From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Nathan >Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 11:51 PM >To: Michael Schneider >Cc: Linked Data community; semantic-web@w3.org >Subject: Re: An idea I need help with, or told to stop wasting time on! > >Michael Schneider wrote: >> Hi! >> >> Just a few notes concerning your ideas and OWL DL (I don't know >whether this >> is important for you or not, but some people might find it relevant): > >Thanks Michael, > >Very useful and indeed relevant (thanks!). > >To summarise, everything mentioned so far by me is fine in OWL Full and >RDF(s), but not in OWL DL. I should have mentioned that you could make ex:value an owl:AnnotationProperty, which would allow you to have all of URIs, literals and bnodes in object position. But this, of course, has other drawbacks in OWL DL, apart from not looking very justified conceptually (ex:value is probably not meant as a means to add comments to a resource?). If you make it an annotation property, most OWL constructs cannot be used with the property anymore. For example, it may make sense to state that ex:value is a functional property, or to put a has-value restriction on it in some scenarios. That's all not possible then anymore. In OWL 2 DL, you could at least put a range axiom on it, but it would not have any semantic consequences, i.e. an OWL DL reasoner would completely ignore both the property and the axiom on it. This may lead to surprises. So, my general view is that making a property, which is not naturally sort of a commenting property (such as rdfs:comment), an annotation property is only acceptable, if you exactly know what you are doing and if you have full control over the property's use. If you expect to publish the property to be used by others, and if there are possible scenarios where one might like to use the property in an OWL construct (e.g. an axiom) or even do reasoning with it, then don't make it an annotation property. >Thus is it safe to say that this would be a problem in OWL DL as well?: > > :x owl:sameAs 'a literal'^^xsd:string . No, owl:sameAs cannot be used with literals in OWL DL. It can only be used with URIs (named individuals). What you are doing here is, again, "genuine" OWL Full, because OWL Full treats data values as individuals. >And I guess the take-away is, that if one was to go for something as >described in the original post, it would not be OWL DL compliant. Consider SKOS-XL [1]: ex:foo skosxl:prefLabel [ rdf:type skosxl:Label ; skosxl:literalForm "foo" ] Here, skosxl:prefLabel is specified as an object property [sic!] and skosxl:literalForm is a data property (while the better known skos:label property is an annotation property). This works in DL, but only if you use those properties as a "team". In your original example, you have used foaf:name, which was a data property, and this does not work. Also, you cannot use skosxl:literalForm with a URI as an object, what you did with ex:value in your earlier post. So, you can do it in DL, but you don't have very much usage freedom. Thus, check your use cases! >ps: If I get to the stage of trying to express any of this in an OWL >ontology (FULL I guess!), would it be okay to send through to cast your >eye over. Feel free. For OWL Full, actually, it's as simple as this: syntactically, if it is in RDF (and it always is), then you are in OWL Full (a no-brainer), simply since the syntax of OWL Full is defined to be (unrestricted) RDF. And if you want to do OWL Full-style reasoning, then the OWL 2 RL/RDF Rules language [2] and corresponding reasoners (e.g. [3]) are often sufficient (though sometimes not, depends on your usecases). >Many Regards, > >Nathan Best, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#xl [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-profiles-20091027/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_ and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules [3] http://www.ivan-herman.net/Misc/2008/owlrl/ -- 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 Monday, 7 June 2010 07:40:43 UTC