- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:47:22 +0100
- To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, "Owl Dev" <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
Hi Pat! Pat Hayes wrote on Friday, December 21: >>Of course, the RDF compatible semantics for OWL-1.1 will have to be >>constructed in a way that the graph {(R1*)} becomes consistent. > >I don't agree. One should expect that the Full semantics will support >more entailments than the DL semantics does, since the Full version >is obviously a more expressive language than the DL. A special case >of this is exactly the situation you describe, where an ontology >which is consistent in DL is inconsistent in Full. Then let's give OWL-1.1-Full unsatisfiable semantics, and everything will be fine. ;-) I don't think that it is a useful idea to allow OWL-DL-consistent ontologies to become inconsistent in OWL-Full. And if this should not be preventable in general, one should at least take care that the cases for which this happens reduce to artificially looking "research examples". If I was an "ordinary" OWL ontology engineer, I would want to have a save feeling that my DL-consistent ontologies, which I have created by applying generally acknowledged design principles, will also be consistent under OWL-Full semantics. Otherwise I would become very skeptical about the practical value of OWL-Full (if I haven't been skeptical before anyway :)). Let's regard Jeremy's ontology discussed in my previous mail: If this ontology would have had different URIrefs for the data property eg:p and the object property eg:p, then Jeremy's example would have been a *very* simple and "naturally looking" ontology. For this "different-URI" version of Jeremy's ontology I certainly wouldn't have expected that it bites the dust in OWL-Full, and in fact with different names for the properties this ontology is actually OWL-Full *consistent*. If a "little syntactical" property punning on the OWL-DL side leads to such big and unexpected semantical changes on the OWL-Full side, then something must be pretty wrong with the concept of data/object-property punning (IMHO). >I would be more >worried if you could find an example the other way round. Perhaps, I will give it a try. But certainly not within the next few days. :) [snip] >This is the first I have heard of 'property punning'. Is there a >compelling use case for it? If not, I suggest dropping the idea. The only stated use case I remember at the moment was: Evren Sirin (Wed, 05 Dec 2007): "Punning object and data properties" <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0061.html> On the other hand, IIRC, in the past, several WG members have considered property punning to be *not* very useful. Merry (semantic-free) Christmas! 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 Saturday, 22 December 2007 15:47:51 UTC