Re: OWL1.1 APis

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>> Up till now the semantic web stack has nested nicely. If I apply an 
>> RDFS reasoner to an OWL document (whether DL or full) all the 
>> deductions are sound.
> 
> Ok, now I'm getting into the second bit :) I don't think this is true, 
> and not a sensible wish anyway. It certainly isn't the case for Simple 
> Interpretations vs. RDFS Interpretations (i.e., some graphs are 
> consistent on simple interpretations and inconsistent on RDFS 
> ones...through in D-entailment and you get more such; by the time you 
> hit OWL Lite, well, you see where it's going :))

Good point, I was implicitly assuming graphs that were consistent at 
each level.

[Merging two messages for ease of reply ...]

 > [snip]
 >> Ok, now I'm getting into the second bit :) I don't think this is true,
 >> and not a sensible wish anyway. I
 > [snip]
 >
 > When I wrote that, I didn't intend to sound snarky, but rereading, I see
 > that it sounds that way.

Perhaps a touch, but perhaps justified :-)

 > I just meant that I thought we all wanted there to be more entailments
 > with an OWL Full reasoner, so I'm confused as to the requirement that,
 > well, there not be any. OWL Full has "more" semantics, so an OWL Full
 > reasoners *should* find more entailments.

Sure it should find more entailments on an OWL/DL document but those 
entailments are [fuzzy imprecise language warning-] not inconsistent 
with OWL/DL entailments.

It seemed to me that punning is different and (unless the RDF 
translation has different URIs for each pun) this introduces a 
divergence in the modelling. However, it is clear to both of us that I 
haven't articulated that divergence, and its implications for how 
OWL/full tools should treat OWLDL/1.1 documents, in a clear and precise way.

Let me turn this round the other way. In your OWLED paper [1] you said:

"However, punning is not compatible with the meta-modelling possibilites 
inherent in the semantics of RDF [6] (and thus inherent in OWL Full), 
precisely because it makes the two uses of a name semantically independent."

What do you think the implication of that incompatibility is for 
existing OWL/full tools?

[I'm going to be out of email contact for the rest of the year :-) so 
substantially delayed response does not necessarily indicate lack of 
interest.]

Dave

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 15:48:53 UTC