- From: Ibach, Brandon L <brandon.l.ibach@lmco.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:21:38 -0400
- To: William Bug <William.Bug@drexelmed.edu>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
- Message-id: <0D237077B37CD943A64396032B656927034736A7@EMSS04M23.us.lmco.com>
Hi, Bill... I also have little experience in interpreting these documents, but I'll give it a shot. I don't know what additional issues the DIG protocol might bring into play, so I can only comment on the OWL aspects. It appears that you might be getting a little confused between the semantics of a _class_ that is _typed_ as a DeprecatedClass and the actual DeprecatedClass _axiom_, itself. I believe it is the axiom that "has no meaning in the model theoretic semantics other than that given by the RDF(S) model theory", meaning that an OWL reasoner should not treat the class any differently than if it was not typed as a DeprecatedClass. This interpretation of the statement you quoted from the OWL Reference appears to be in line with the semantics you cited from section 3.3 of the OWL Semantics document, wherein the presence of a DeprecatedClass axiom only expands the extension of the rdf:type relation and does not otherwise affect the semantics. Given this, I believe you could say that DeprecatedClasses are NOT invisible to reasoners, but that the DeprecatedClass axiom (effectively) is. (Mind you, I'd say this is true for OWL DL, though not so much for OWL Full, about whose semantics I will not claim any solid understanding.) I believe this is in line with most models for deprecation in computer languages. That is, something which is deprecated will continue to operate as it always, but the user of it (be it a programmer, modeler, user, etc.) may receive warning messages to remind them that they should try to transition away from using it. -Brandon :) ________________________________ From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of William Bug Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2007 5:33 PM To: public-owl-dev@w3.org Subject: Are DeprecatedClasses invisible to DIG Reasoners? Hi All, This is a naive question from someone who's never - in the context of implementing a DIG Reasoner - had to interpret either the OWL Direct Model-Theoretic Semantics: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/direct.html#owl_Dep recatedClass_semantics or the OWL Abstract Syntax: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/syntax.html#owl_Dep recatedClass_syntax_lite for owl:DeprecatedClass. I've read the W3C OWL docs - I've searched this lists archive - I've read the SWOOP paper that talks a bit about versioning - and I've Googled about, but nowhere can I find a simple answer to the question: Are DeprecatedClasses invisible to DIG Reasoners? The following sentence in the OWL Language Reference implies they might be: "(DeprecatedClass) has no meaning in the model theoretic semantics other than that given by the RDF(S) model theory." http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#Deprecation I could write a simple OWL file with logical entailments from which a reasoner can identify inferred sets, then go in and declare some of the Classes as DeprecatedClasses to see how this effects the reasoner output, but I thought I'd simply come to the source and ask the experts. Something tells me from the variety of scenarios a reasoner might have to confront when parsing a complex OWL file with specific Classes and/or Properties defined as deprecated that the answer may not be straight-forward. Having said this, given in OWL DL, owl:Class is a direct subclass of rdfs:Class (as opposed to being equivalent to rdfs:Class) and owl:DeprecatedClass is also a direct subclass of rdfs:Class, it seems reasonable to assume DeprecatedClasses definitions have not logical entailments. What would it mean, then, for a Class definition to contain the following type specification: <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DeprecatedClass"/> I've noticed when I specify an owl:Class as "Deprecated" in Protege-OWL (<= v3.3beta), this element is added to the otherwise unchanged class specification. Many thanks for any info or citations you can provide on this issue. Cheers Bill Bug Bill Bug Senior Research Analyst/Ontological Engineer Laboratory for Bioimaging & Anatomical Informatics www.neuroterrain.org Department of Neurobiology & Anatomy Drexel University College of Medicine 2900 Queen Lane Philadelphia, PA 19129 215 991 8430 (ph) 610 457 0443 (mobile) 215 843 9367 (fax) Please Note: I now have a new email - William.Bug@DrexelMed.edu
Received on Monday, 20 August 2007 21:17:53 UTC