Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

All - this email was hung on a server which I just discovered and  
goosed  - I thought this had been deleted -- it was written before  
the resolution of issue 2 -- I apologize to everyone for the "spam"
  -JH


On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:

>
> I've never understood why roundtripping would be positive, some day  
> someone will explain this to me (since the original document is  
> still on the Web and has a URI, I can always find it, so why do I  
> need to reproduce it) ... but thst's not my point
>
> The real point is that if you have a list of N classes that are  
> disjoint, you need N^^2 disjoint statements -- I gave an example  
> where one could need thousands of disjoint statements -- here's the  
> important use case from that mail:
> ----
> I had pretty much decided the above was correct, but yesterday I was
> talking to scientists about Semantic Web, and the following use case
> came up -- they want to be able to take biological taxonoma and
> represent in OWL, but they care very much what is and isn't disjoint
> (class wise).  In particular, they want to be able to have it be the
> case that at each level of the taxonomy the subclasses are disjoint
> -- i.e. they want to be able to say
>
> AllDisjoint (Animal, plant, ...) 1s of classes
>
> AllDisjoint (Mammalian, reptilian, amhibian ...)   (10s of classes)
>
> and then
> AllDisjoint (canine, feline, ovine, cervine, ceatacean ...) (100s  
> of classes)
>
> but not to assert that within canines there is disjointness between
> wolfes, dogs (of various types) etc, since these can interbreed etc.
> They said the bottom level would be in the 100s of classes, so could
> need 10000+ separate disjoint statements!
>
> (Note that they used the animal example so I could understand, but
> they were actually talking about more subtle distinctions in
> proteomics and the like).
> ----
> I am now on the advisory board of the EOL project where exactly  
> this issue has come up again --- so since I'm not chair and am  
> allowed to push an opinion - I think we MUST include a construct to  
> avoid having to make the N^^2 statements in the RDF/XML documents  
> (Which remain the normative exchange syntax for OWL)
>  -JH
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/ 
> 0206.html
>
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 9:07 PM, Boris Motik wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I don't think this is just a translation blowup problem; rather,  
>> it is also about roundtripping from the structural spec to OWL/RDF
>> and back. Ideally, roundtripping is quite desirable: note that the  
>> structural spec is something that most APIs will use. It would be
>> good if you can load an ontology, process it, save it, and be sure  
>> that nothing has changed due to the drawbacks of one of the
>> syntactic formats.
>>
>> Thus, I advocate keeping the language symmetric. Also, what is  
>> really against making it so? A couple of new RDF built-in properties
>> won't harm anyone.
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg- 
>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
>>> Sent: 12 November 2007 21:19
>>> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint  
>>> in RDF mapping
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Summary: argue against new RDF/XML constructs for equivalent- 
>>> classes,
>>> equivalent-properties or equal-individuals, onb basis that all of  
>>> these
>>> have O(n) constructs already.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed
>>>
>>> Boris wrote:
>>> [[
>>> There are other n-ary constructs in the functional spec that are  
>>> mapped
>>> into binary constructs in the RDF: equivalences on classes,
>>> disjointness and equivalences on properties, and sameAs and  
>>> disjointFrom
>>> on individuals.
>>>
>>> It might make sense to broaden the discussion to these features  
>>> as well.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> The WebOnt rule for OWL 1.0 made sense to me:
>>>
>>> For an n-ary construct in the abstract syntax, it must be  
>>> possible to
>>> have an O(n) construct with the same meaning.
>>>
>>> For the disjoint classes we were hence suggesting that the ontology
>>> writer should use the distinguished property approach.
>>>
>>> This is documented in
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.21-drop- 
>>> disjointUnionOf
>>> linking to
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses
>>> and linking to
>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/byIssue#I5.21-002
>>> (which, in the Manifest file, is credited to Horrocks)
>>>
>>> At the telecon we were told that there had proved to be operational
>>> difficulties with this, hence a directed O(n) construct should be
>>> supplied for RDF/XML.
>>>
>>> For the positive constructs (equivalent class, same individual ...)
>>> there are trivial O(n) RDF/XML constructs, so that we don't need to,
>>> (and shouldn't?) provide alternative constructs.
>>>
>>> i.e. to work through Boris's list:
>>> [[
>>> equivalences on classes,
>>> equivalences on properties
>>> sameAs on individuals
>>>      trivially O(n)
>>> disjointness on properties
>>>      new, should be considered
>>> disjointFrom
>>>     on individuals ??? what's this.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 03:39:11 UTC