Re: How to specify OWL version in a document

On 23 Jun 2015 15:57, "Tara Athan" <taraathan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about the case where the ontology meets the DL syntactic
restrictions but has punning?

Punning between classes and datatypes or classes and individuals is
allowed, punning between properties is not allowed. That's still a
syntactic rule.
Cheers,
I.

Isn't it necessary to indicate whether entailment should be based on OWL-DL
or OWL Full?
>
> Tara
>
>
> On 6/23/15 12:52 AM, Bijan Parsia wrote:
>>
>> On 22 Jun 2015, at 16:06, Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There is no pre-defined annotation to indicate the intended OWL profile
for an ontology document.  However, one can indicate actual compliance with
OWL 2-DL by obeying all the DL restrictions 👮.
>>
>> You can run your document through a validator as well.
>>
>> In general, an annotation can become wrong for a lot of reasons. The way
to be inside an intended profile is to conform to that profile’s grammar.
>>>
>>> It is conceptually confusing to state that an ontology document is in a
specific profile,  since most of the more problematic DL violations may
only show up when the entire imports closure is considered - a document
that imports only DL ontology documents may require OWL Full.
>>
>> This is one of my favourite things :)
>>>
>>> You can check an ontology for compliance with a given profile using the
Profile validators in  OWLAPI.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> There are existing canonical IRIs for most (all?) OWL entailment
regimes defined as part of the SPARQL 1.1 recommendation series. These
could be used as values for an ontology annotation.
>>
>>
>> For the reasons you stated, I would generally suggest that this would be
unwise unless it’s the *result*of a checking process. But then, it’s easy
enough to check, I’m not sure what value it has.
>>
>> You could imagine having  a hint as to intended profile so that a lint
or preflight tool can say “Hey, you are violating your intended profile!”
but I doubt that’s really necessary.
>>>
>>> Such an annotation should always be validated before making the
ontology document visible.
>>> If you are using OWLAPI , you could use such an annotation to select a
profile checker. The profile checkers are not designed for incremental use,
but I don't think this would be prohibitively difficult to implement.
>>>
>>> It is possible for two documents in an imports closure, with different
declared
>>
>> ? You mean they conform to a grammar?
>>>
>>> sub DL profiles,  to not require  DL, as long as they don't use any
clashing features.
>>
>> The condition is a bit stronger: They both have to be in *one* profile.
If they start out in different profiles then I don’t think they can
collapse to one without already being in that one.
>>
>> Note that there are documents that are in both EL and RL (or EL, RL, and
QL). That is, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bijan.
>>
>