- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:35:57 -0500
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
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