Re: Integrity constraints for OWL 2 / OWL 2 DL

Thank you for your answer and clarifications.Some rules are imposed in RDF/S ontologies (as the table shows) such as:- Each property has to have a domain and a range- each subsumtion(of classes or properties) is acyclic and irreflexive.I noticed that those rules have not to be satisfied  neither in OWL 2 nor in OWL 2 DL;  Are they still valid for OWL 2 ontology? if no, can i define  my own  (user defined )  rules including such rules and apply them in my OWL 2 ontology? Nevertheless, are there similar ones in OWL 2.thx for answering me.  


     Le Lundi 23 mars 2015 11h26, Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
   

 ok, so you do mean syntactical rules - but then you need to distinguish between OWL 2 and OWL 2 DL, see http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/ in particular 

"The Direct Semantics assigns meaning directly to ontology structures, resulting in a semantics compatible with the model theoretic semantics of the SROIQ description logic—a fragment of first order logic with useful computational properties. The advantage of this close connection is that the extensive description logic literature and implementation experience can be directly exploited by OWL 2 tools. However, some conditions must be placed on ontology structures in order to ensure that they can be translated into a SROIQ knowledge base; for example, transitive properties cannot be used in number restrictions (see Section 3 of the OWL 2 Structural Specification document [OWL 2 Structural Specification] for a complete list of these conditions). Ontologies that satisfy these syntactic conditions are called OWL 2 DL ontologies. "OWL 2 DL" is used informally to refer to OWL 2 DL ontologies interpreted using the Direct Semantics [OWL 2 Direct Semantics].” 

Cheers, Uli

On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:22, Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> Hi,
> thx for you answer. I think that the author of the cited paper means simply syntacticatical rules. Doesn't he? In fact, he calls them " validity rules" in his another  paper. Here are:
>  Is my thought correct? If I am correct, I want to know the corresponding ones in OWL 2 (ARE THEY THE SUBJECT OF THE STRUCTURAL SPECIFICATION) or are there other ones?
> Thank you in advance for your help.
> 
> 
> 
> Le Dimanche 22 mars 2015 21h42, Uli Sattler <Ulrike.Sattler@manchester.ac.uk> a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hi Leila, 
> 
> there have been various extensions of owl with integrity constraints, but owl itself doesn't have a mechanism for integrity constraints. what do you want them for? Also, there are certain syntax restrictions for owl 2 direct semantics - don't confuse these with integrity constraints! 
> 
> Cheers, Uli
> 
> On 22 Mar 2015, at 17:17, Leila Bayoudhi <bayoudhileila@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, 
>> Please I want to check whether are there corresponding integrity constraints for OWL 2/ OWL 2DL as those those defined in table 4 p 19 in [1] (which define them for RDF/S ? Are they the ones defined in [2]  for OWL 2? Are THEY the ones defined in [3] for OWL 2 DL?
>> What I look for is to some integrity constraints for OWL 2 and/or OWL 2DL such the ones defined in the cited paper?
>> Thanks for your help.
>> 
>> [1] Giorgos Flouris · George Konstantinidis ·Grigoris Antoniou · Vassilis Christophides Formal foundations for RDF/S KB evolution
>> [2]  http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
>>  [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Global_Restrictions_on_Axioms_in_OWL_2_DL
>>  
> 
> 
> <validity rules  integrity rules.PNG>