- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:06:40 +0200
- To: "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Hi! OWL-Full has ever been a complete mystery to me, and I admit that I have never really made an approach to explore it. But now that people have started to work on a new version of OWL, I think it is a good time for me to at least try to learn a few fundamental facts. So dear OWL-Full experts: I will put a few questions, all very basic, and all of them can be answered by just saying "yes" or "no". But I won't bite you if you also add a small explanation to each of your answers. :) (1) My first question is about syntactically correct OWL-Full ontologies. I always thought that simply "everything" is allowed in OWL-Full. So my question: Is every RDF graph an allowed OWL-Full ontology? (2) The rest of my questions all deal with semantics. I think I have heard somewhere that one can "change the semantics" of OWL-Full itself by stating axioms about OWL vocabulary, but I don't know if this is true, and not even what this exactly means. Ok, let's test this by creating a concrete example! I would have said that the following two statements lead to inconsistency even in OWL-Full: :x owl:sameAs :y . :x owl:differentFrom :y . But what if I add the following axiom: EquivalentProperties(owl:sameAs owl:differentFrom) This should at least be syntactically ok in OWL-Full (see (1)). But have I also managed to make this ontology semantically consistent with this trick? I don't believe so, but I am also not certain. And whatever answer is correct, I do not have an explanation for any of them. (3) A more general question: Is it true that whenever an OWL-DL ontology is inconsistent under OWL-DL semantics, then it is also inconsistent under OWL-Full semantics? Would sound reasonable to me, but I am not sure. (4) Looking at both questions (2) and (3) brings me to my last question. The ontology in question (2) is *not* an allowed OWL-DL ontology, of course, but it contains a sub-ontology which is syntactically allowed in OWL-DL: The first two statements above. So I ask if the following claim is true: "Given that an OWL-Full ontology contains an OWL-DL sub-ontology, which is inconsistent under OWL-DL semantics, then the complete OWL-Full ontology is inconsistent under OWL-Full semantics." Is this true or wrong? Ok, I think that this is enough for me for the moment to get a first feeling for OWL-Full. Cheers, Michael -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Monday, 22 October 2007 20:07:02 UTC