RE: Annotation entailment!

Hi Denny,

Small correction: it is rdfs:label, one of the five predefined OWL
annotation properties.

Regards,
Hans

PS Nothing wrong with in-depth reading :-) , but granted, the
Recommendations aren't easy to read. 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Denny Vrandecic
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 23:43
To: Alan Ruttenberg
Cc: OWL list
Subject: Annotation entailment!


OK, I checked the specs, and Alan is correct. OK, I can't derive it from the
specs (this would require some in-depth reading), but actually there are
normative test cases that answer the question pretty clearly (referenced
below).

So, owl:sameAs does indeed carry annotation property entailments, i.e.

ex:A rdf:label "Grue".
ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
--------------------
ex:B rdf:label "Grue".

*does* hold. Furthermore,

ex:A rdf:label "Grue".
ex:A owl:equivalentClass ex:B.
----------------------------
ex:B rdf:label "Grue".

does *not* hold, but

ex:A rdf:type owl:Class.
ex:B rdf:type owl:Class.
ex:A rdf:label "Grue".
ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
-----------------------
ex:B rdf:label "Grue".

*does* indeed hold, but only in OWL Full (it's not a valid OWL DL ontology).

I guess

ex:A rdf:label "Grue".
ex:A owl:equivalentProperty ex:B.
----------------------------
ex:B rdf:label "Grue".

does not hold as well.

I find the fact that sameAs and equivalentClass are treated differently with
this respect unintuitive, but at least it is well specified :) A well
defined spec is the next best thing to an intuitive spec.

Thanks for your help,
denny

Here are the test cases I derived this from:
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-sameAs>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/byFunction#function-equivalentClass>

Zitat von Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>:

>
> I have recently understood it to be the case that this *is* entailed. 
>  However, I don't think that it is desirable, and it seems to be the 
> case that there is no OWL-DL reasoner that attempts to be sound and
> (otherwise) complete that implements this behavior, at least that I'm  
> aware of.
>
> What do you think of this behavior? Is it is what you expected or 
> wanted? If so, I'd be interested hearing about your use case.
>
> Until recently it was my (flawed) understanding that statements 
> involving annotation properties were to be ignored by a reasoner.
>
> -Alan
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
>
>>
>> Does
>> ex:A rdf:label "Groo".
>> ex:A owl:sameAs ex:B.
>> entail
>> ex:B rdf:label "Groo"?
>>
>> i.e. are annotation property instances connected to the URI or the 
>> underlying individual?
>> (And respectively for classes and properties)
>>
>> Wondering,
>> denny
>>
>>
>
>
>




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 28-Jun-07
17:57
 

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.12/878 - Release Date: 28-Jun-07
17:57

Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 07:53:11 UTC