- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:24:32 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Hi again, Peter! I see that I still have several concrete problems in understanding punning, before I can answer your other mails. Here is the next question: Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >Well, in OWL 1.1, it is true that > > Declaration(Individual(a)) > Declaration(OWLClass(a)) > Declaration(Individual(b)) > Declaration(OWLClass(b)) > SameIndividual(a b) > >does not entail > > EquivalentClasses(a b) My question is /not/ about this claim, but about RDF mapping. I want to know: Given an OWL-1.1 ontology in functional style syntax, in which punning is used. How is such an ontology mapped to RDF? As an example, let's take the above six axioms: Declaration(Individual(a)) Declaration(OWLClass(a)) Declaration(Individual(b)) Declaration(OWLClass(b)) SameIndividual(a b) EquivalentClasses(a b) How do these axioms get mapped to RDF? I can imagine two different mappings: A: Each URI ref in the functional syntax version gets directly mapped to the same URI ref in the resulting RDF graph: <a> owl11:declaredAs owl11:Individual . <a> owl11:declaredAs owl:Class . <b> owl11:declaredAs owl11:Individual . <b> owl11:declaredAs owl:Class . <a> owl:sameAs <b> . <a> owl:equivalentClass <b> . B: The URI refs get explicitly separated: <a_Thing> owl11:declaredAs owl11:Individual . <a_Class> owl11:declaredAs owl:Class . <b_Thing> owl11:declaredAs owl11:Individual . <b_Class> owl11:declaredAs owl:Class . <a_Thing> owl:sameAs <b_Thing> . <a_Class> owl:equivalentClass <b_Class> . As far as I understand it: If punning allows to denote semantically unrelated individuals and classes by the same URI ref in functional syntax, than mapping A would change the original semantics of the ontology, while this semantics would be preserved by mapping B. But otherwise, if an individual and a class having the same name are intended to be the same entity, than mapping A would be a correct mapping, while B would also allow interpretations where the individual and the class are semantically unrelated. So only one of these mappings should be allowed. But I cannot find out from the "RDF mapping" draft which mapping is correct. Probably, I have only overlooked the important bits in the draft? 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, 5 November 2007 09:25:15 UTC