- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 00:35:36 -0400
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
I've moved the technical bit from this email to http://www.w3.org/ 2007/OWL/wiki/Compatibility_between_OWL_DL_and_OWL_Full as a starting point. Let's collect issues and evaluation metrics there. (I'm still trying to understand the example) -Alan On Nov 2, 2007, at 1:20 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: Punning and the "properties for classes" use case > (from public-owl-dev) > Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 13:01:00 -0400 > >> On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > [...] > >> Also, I'd like to understand the reasoning behind Ian's assertion >> >>> Name separation is required, however, if Fast OWL is to be embedded >>> in RDFS in such a way as to be semantically compatible with Large >>> OWL. > > This is precisely the argument that is being replayed right now. > It was > thought that name separation would allow complete and exact > correspondence between the two semantics when ontologies were > restricted > to OWL DL. > > This doesn't work because of domain size issues, e.g., > > Axy x=y -> pa iff qa > > is "valid" in OWL Full but not in OWL DL. > > (Yes, this is neither OWL Full nor OWL DL, but it illustrates the > point. > The OWL version is something like > > ObjectProperty ( ex:s inverseOf ( ex:si ) ) > ObjectProperty ( ex:q ) > SubClassOf ( owl:Thing restriction ( ex:s value ( ex:spy ) ) ) > Individual ( ex:spy type ( restriction ( ex:si cardinality > ( 1 ) ) ) ) > Individual ( ex:a type ( ex:p ) ) > > entails in OWL Full / does not entail in OWL DL > > Individual ( ex:a type ( ex:q ) ) > > I leave it up to the WG members to rewrite this in RDF/XML.) > > I believe that the name separation compromise worked into the RDF > mapping was to try to achieve complete correspondence on the part > of OWL > DL that was rewritable as RDF. When it was shown that complete > correspondence was not possible name separation was already in and > never > was revisited. > >> (BTW, what's Fast OWL and Large OWL?) > > Working names for what became OWL DL and OWL Full. > >> >> -Alan > > peter
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:35:49 UTC