- From: Chris Mungall <cjmungall@lbl.gov>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 08:56:21 -0800
- To: "Ignazio Palmisano" <ipalmisano.mailings@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 17 Jan 2017, at 5:43, Ignazio Palmisano wrote: > On 17 Jan 2017 13:38, "Svensson, Lars" <L.Svensson@dnb.de> wrote: > > Dear all, > > This is a newbie question, so please bear with me if the answer is > obvious > or has been answered elsewhere... > >> From what I can see, the OWL Syntax does not allow axioms stating >> that two > annotation properties are equal [1]. Is there a particular reason for > that > design decision? My use case is to align two vocabularies and have > found > property pairs that are equivalent. I realise that I can use > owl:subPropertyOf instead but the properties really are equivalent. > > > > You can use two sub property axioms to achieve the same result, but > the > main issue is that annotation properties are ignored, to an extent, by > reasoners. > I believe also that that might be the reason there is no equivalent > axiom > for annotation properties - they don't have the same semantics as the > other > properties. AFAICT you're allowed to pun between an annotation property and individual https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-new-features/#F12:_Punning So you can make a sameIndividuals axiom about the two IRIs. In the RDF / OWL full interpretation, they two properties would be the same. Might be massively confusing though for the OWL level. But I suspect this isn't really required. For mapping between vocabularies you can just roll your own annotation property for saying two things match, or use the OWL version of SKOS? > I. > > > [1] > https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-syntax-20121211/#Annotation_Axioms > > Thanks for any insight, > > Lars
Received on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 16:57:27 UTC