- From: Stephan Opfer <stephan.opfer@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:40:32 +0200
- To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
Hello, I recently noticed, that although the model of an owl axiom should have tree property, it is not possible to describe a tree data structure in OWL. The way I would model it, is to create a class Node and a property hasChild and make the hasChild property transitive and irreflexive, which is not allowed in OWL-DL, because transitive properties are no simple properties. I searched a bit on w3c websites and their citations and also made another post on the protege-owl mailing list:protege-ontology-editor-knowledge-acquisition-system.136.n4.nabble.com/Tree-Paradox-of-OWL-td4655163.html Someone told me, that I should post this question here, too. You don't have to read the other post. Here is a summary of my observations and the resulting question to this mailing list. On website [0] the restriction about composite object properties are described and [1] is cited for given the reason for these restrictions. However, [1] states about irreflexivity combined with transitivity: "For SROIQ and the remaining restrictions to simple roles in concept expressions as well as role assertions, it is part of future work to determine which of these restrictions to simple roles is strictly necessary in order to preserve decidability or practicability. This restriction, however, allows a rather smooth integration of the new constructs into existing algorithms." So my question is: Has someone proven, that the restrictions about transitivity and irreflexivity can be loosen? Otherwise, OWL cannot describe a tree data structure on "schema level". Best Regards, Stephan [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#The_Restrictions_on_the_Axiom_Closure [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~sattler/publications/sroiq-TR.pdf
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 12:13:55 UTC