- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:16:09 +0100
- To: "Michael Schneider" <m_schnei@gmx.de>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk
Two small corrections.
On 9 Aug 2007, at 12:59, Michael Schneider wrote:
[snip]
> Of course, if the declaredAs mechanism were already demanded by the
> definition itself, arguing for the necessity of the declaredAs
> mechanism is like saying: "It's so because the bible says so!". But
> I won't believe that the declaredAs proponents really argue in such
> a trivial way. :)
Good methodology :)
> Well, this discussion is a little behind, now that Bijan told me
> what the real intention for the declaredAs mechanism is:
This is merely *my* understanding. Boris, for example, may have a
different understanding!
> To make one's intention explicit ("This URI is intended to denote
> a /class/"). But I at least wanted to make clear how I understood
> the above definition of "structural consistency", because it might
> explain a few of my arguments in my former posts. Especially it
> should explain, why I argued for creating such a "best-practice"
> document plus a reference implementation for checking the
> "structural consistency" of an ontology.
[snip]
>> You are referring to OWL-DL. But in OWL-Full it is possible for
>> example to write
>
> This is an easy one to counter: This whole thread is about a
> proposed feature for OWL-1.1, which is planned to become the
> successor of OWL/DL. So I regard bringing OWL-Full or even other
> languages into play here as simply to be off-topic! :)
[snip]
This is not quite correct, or at least overstrong. OWL 1.1 is indeed
centered on OWL DL but is an attempt to move toward a revision of
*OWL*. Thus the WG will take OWL 1.1 as an input, but, presumably,
work to flesh out other OWL Full aspects (punning is, in fact, a move
in this direction).
So I wouldn't rule it off topic at all.
However, I believe you were still correct in your analysis of what
types you can infer from those axioms. You were giving "Triggers"
roughly, i.e., "if you see a term in the object position of an
rdf:type triple, then it must (at least) be a class". However, I
suspect in OWL Full something could be *inferred* to be a class
without a direct axiom for it, thus things are more complex than is
happy.
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 12:15:10 UTC