Re: ISSUE-8 (dataproperty chains): REPORTED: add chains ending with data properties)

Uli,

Do the same decidability issues arise if only the last property on  
the chain is a datatype property?

-Alan

On Nov 7, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> So we can allow this in OWL 1.1 Full, but not in OWL 1.1. DL since  
> it is only related to decidability which is the primary  
> differentiator between DL and Full.  So I propose that we include  
> this construct in 1.1 but make it clear that using it will take you  
> to Full.
>  Since this is on agenda for discussion at a meeting I cannot  
> attend, I state for the record that RPI would oppose any closure of  
> this issue that would not allow a property chain to end in a  
> datatype property in the RDF realization
>  -JH
> p.s. I realize now that my primary problem with the structural  
> document relates to this DL v. Full issue, and will take that up in  
> another thread.
>
>
> On Nov 7, 2007, at 5:12 AM, Uli Sattler wrote:
>
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> a few days ago, I sent this email below as an answer to Owl Dev  
>> only, overlooking that I should have sent it to owl-wg as  
>> well...so here it is with a bit of delay, cheers, Uli
>>
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2007, at 15:13, Uli Sattler wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> there are reasons why these sub-property chains are only made up  
>>> of object properties:  decidability in OWL (DL and 1.1) relies on  
>>> the fact that "datatype consistency" can be checked for each  
>>> object separately, without referring to other objects and the  
>>> values of their datatype properties. If we would need to do this,  
>>> we would more likely be in trouble, and would need to
>>>
>>> - be much more careful about what datatypes and datatype  
>>> predicates to allow without loosing decidability and
>>> - use more complex reasoning mechanisms that have, to the best of  
>>> my knowledge, only been described on paper and never been  
>>> implemented or tested.
>>>
>>> So, I can see your use case, but I don't think we know enough  
>>> about this yet.
>>>
>>> If you want to know more, check out
>>>
>>> Carsten Lutz and Maja Milicic. A Tableau Algorithm for  
>>> Description Logics with Concrete Domains and General TBoxes.  
>>> Journal of Automated Reasoning. To appear.
>>> http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/~clu/papers/archive/jar06.pdf
>>>
>>> Carsten Lutz. Description Logics with Concrete Domains - A  
>>> Survey. In Philippe Balbiani, Nobu-Yuki Suzuki, Frank Wolter, and  
>>> Michael Zakharyaschev, editors, Advances in Modal Logics Volume  
>>> 4. King's College Publications, 2003.
>>> http://lat.inf.tu-dresden.de/~clu/papers/archive/aiml4.ps.gz
>>>
>>> Cheers, Uli
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Oct 2007, at 13:26, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> It just stroke me that there seem to be only Sub/Object/ 
>>>> PropertyChains in
>>>> the current OWL-1.1 draft [1]. Does anyone know if there is a  
>>>> problem with
>>>> also having sub property chains of the form
>>>>
>>>>   SubDataPropertyOf(
>>>>       SubDataPropertyChain(R1 ... Rn-1 Dn)
>>>>       D )
>>>>
>>>> where Dn and D are DataPropertyS (having compatible datatypes as  
>>>> their
>>>> ranges), while R1 ... Rn-1 are ObjectPropertyS?
>>>>
>>>> With such a SubDataPropertyChain, one could for instance  
>>>> translate rules
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>>>   ?x hasFather ?y AND ?y hasFamilyName ?fn
>>>>   ==> ?x hasFamilyName ?fn
>>>>
>>>> with ?fn being an xsd:string, into an equivalent OWL axiom
>>>>
>>>>   SubDataPropertyOf(
>>>>       SubDataPropertyChain(hasFather hasFamilyName)
>>>>       hasFamilyName )
>>>>
>>>> In this case, the super property whould equal the final chain  
>>>> property (both
>>>> 'hasFamilyName').
>>>>
>>>> An example for a more general rule type (the analogon of the  
>>>> 'uncle' rule)
>>>> would be:
>>>>
>>>>   ?g containsUser ?u AND ?u hasUserID ?i
>>>>   ==> ?g containsUserWithID ?i
>>>>
>>>> where ?g would stand for some user group. Here, the DataPropertyS
>>>> 'hasUserID' and 'containsUserWithID' differ from each other,  
>>>> because they
>>>> are intended to have a different meaning.
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas, if this feature has a chance to enter the family of  
>>>> OWL-1.1 (or
>>>> 1.2 :)) axioms? Or did I overlook some fundamental issue here?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> [1] OWL-1.1 Semantics
>>>>     http://www.webont.org/owl/1.1/semantics.html#2
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
>>>> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
>>>> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
>>>> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
>>>> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
>>>> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
>>>> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>>>>
>>>> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
>>>> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
>>>> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
>>>> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
>>>> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
>>>> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi  
>>>> Studer
>>>> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther  
>>>> Leßnerkraus
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research,  
> would it?." - Albert Einstein
>
> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
> Computer Science Dept
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 15:23:52 UTC