- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:23:39 -0500
- To: Uli Sattler <sattler@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
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