RE: owl semantics

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Pocock
> Sent: 23 July 2007 14:47
> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
> Subject: owl semantics
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've a query arrising from the owl semantics page [1]. 
> Section 2 defines a vocabulary (signature), in terms of owl 
> stuff (classes, properties, datatypes, ...). It also defines 
> interpretations of ontologies. I was unsure about a couple of points.
> 
> 1) there is no formal definition of the relationship between 
> an ontology and a vocabulary.

That relationship is defined in section 3.4, in point 1 of the
definition of 'satisfies', although not especially precisely, and with a
typo [2].

> One possibility is that each 
> ontology can be transformed into a vocabulary that mentions 
> exactly those things used in the ontology.

Certainly each ontology has a smallest vocabulary that 'covers' it.

> Another is that 
> there is one vocabulary that contains *everything* and that 
> any ontology only uses some of. 

It can't be this because, for example, VIP and VDP are disjoint in every
vocabulary, but a given URI could be in either depending on the context.

> Of course, a range of 
> possibilities exist between these two extremes. The former 
> seems more likely to me.

I think it's slacker than that: any vocabulary larger than the smallest
covering vocabulary will do.

> 
> Matthew
> 
> 1 http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-semantics/
> 
> 

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webont-comments/2007Apr/0003.
html


-- 
Dave Turner  Cube T400, HP Labs Bristol, Filton Road, Bristol BS34 8QZ
davidt@hp.com          +44 117 3129104 (Work) +44 7962 811627 (Mobile)

Hewlett-Packard Limited. Registered No: 690597 England
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN

Received on Monday, 23 July 2007 15:32:53 UTC