- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:50:06 +0100
- To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I would just like to point out that, with or without punning, already in OWL 1.0 you have an ontology O containing the triples (1)--(5). Hence, the problem that I described in my previous e-mail is already there and is not specific to OWL 1.1. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll > Sent: 24 October 2007 17:23 > To: public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping > > > > Boris > [[ > Imagine that your ontology O contains all the following triples: > > (1) <X rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty> > (2) <X rdf:type owl:DataProperty> > > (3) <Y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty> > (4) <Y rdf:type owl:DataProperty> > > (5) <X rdfs:subPropertyOf Y> > > Note that triples (1) and (2), and (3) and (4) are allowed because you > can have punning in OWL 1.1; hence, you can use the same name > as both object and a data property. > > If you now try to produce an axiom that corresponds to triple (5), you > have a problem: is this axiom representing inclusions between > the object property X and the object property Y, or between the data > property X and the data property Y? > ]] > > i.e. punning is an unhelpful idea. > > The OWL Full treatment of a URI used as both a DataProperty and an > ObjectProperty is that it represents a single property. > > This treatment is in OWL 1.0 Full, and extensively deployed (for example > in the RDF subset of OWL). > > Jeremy >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2007 16:50:48 UTC