- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:45:25 -0000
- To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Agree. Instead of owl11:propertyFromChain, I would simply call it owl11:propertyChain: the semantics of <x owl11:propertyChain LIST[y1 ... yn]> would then be "the extension of x is obtained by chaining together y1, ..., yn". In OWL 1.1 Full one could use this everywhere, and not just in the rdfs:subPropertyOf. (In the DL version, however, we'll have to disallow such free usage of owl11:propertyChain.) Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 21 November 2007 11:40 > To: Boris Motik > Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG' > Subject: Re: ISSUE-64 (obj-prop-chain rep): REPORTED: object property chains in triples: confusion of > list with property > > Boris Motik wrote: > > Hello Jeremy, > > > > I am not sure I completely understand what the problem is here, so please let me just restate the > problem. > > > > I get the impression that you are worrying about a proper definition for the semantics of > rdfs:subPropertyOf. The semantics of this > > property is defined in RDF(S), so we can't redefine it in OWL. > > Yes > > > Thus, we would somehow need to ensure that the interpretation of the > > first node in the rdfs:subPropertyOf is equivalent to the semantics of the property chain. > > The interpretation of the first node must be a property and have an > appropriate property extension. > > That node may be the same as the list node, or could be some other node, > that depends on the mapping rules. > > > > > > Is this a correct summary of the problem? If that's it, I have no problem with extending the RDF > mapping. > > > > > Yes I don't think this is hard. > > I was trying to list issues, (some easy, some difficult). > I wasn't trying to restrict myself particularly. > > I think it is poor form to sit on issues and raise them later in the > working group life, when I am aware of them today. > > Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:46:09 UTC