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

I find this compelling.

Jeremy

Turner, David wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

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

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 07:59:13 UTC