RE: suggest owl11:chain to relate a list of properties to their chain/composition

The following is motivated by thoughts towards a RDF-compatible
semantics for OWL-1.1.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dan Connolly
> Sent: 31 July 2007 23:41
> To: Jeremy Carroll
> Cc: Owl Dev
> Subject: Re: suggest owl11:chain to relate a list of 
> properties to their chain/composition
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 23:22 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > Making the bnode explicit:
> > 
> > _:p rdfs:subPropertyOf uncle.
> > _:p = (parent brother).
> > 
> > There exist a thing (_:p) that is a subPropertyOf uncle 
> (and hence it 
> > is a property), which equals parent composed with brother.

No, that just says that equals the list [parent, brother], not their
composition, unless you make that a part of the RDF-style semantics. I'd
agree that a relation, owl11:chain, that relates lists of properties to
their compositions is a reasonable suggestion, more so than simply
saying that the property-extension of a list is the composition of the
property-extensions of the list elements.

> > 
> > Doesn't that read OK?
> 
> Well, no. I can't put my finger on any sharp mathematical 
> reasons why not, but it doesn't.

Another valid reason would be backwards-compatibility. From section 5.4
of the OWL-1.0 semantics, IOOP and IL are disjoint in OWL DL
interpretations. So you can't have something is an owl:ObjectProperty
and an rdf:List in OWL-1.0 DL and I agree that it jars to do so in
OWL-1.1.

> It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of
> 
>  Man owl:intersectionOf (Person Male).
>  Adult owl:unionOf (Man Woman).

+1

Cheers,

Dave


-- 
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 Wednesday, 1 August 2007 07:26:39 UTC