- From: OWL <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:34:28 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-19 (declarations-p): REPORTED: Resolve whether to include declarations http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg On product: Reported by alanruttenberg, Aug 08, 2007 Pro: Allows for detecting some kinds of errors Allows expression of intention in otherwise ambiguous cases Con: Some duplication of information Uncertain impact Not a lot of experience with it (there may be others) See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg80 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JulSep/thread.html#msg27 Comment 1 by bparsia, Aug 13, 2007 It should be noted that declarations *exist*, in a sense, in OWL DL. Use typing and declarations are handled by a mix of type triples and inference from syntactic position. Type triples are overloaded to be a kind of declaration as well as a typing mechanism. The second pro conflates issues concerning intention and issues concerning ambiguity. Ambiguity is generally handled, in OWL 1.1, by manifest typing, e.g., "ObjectPropertyDomain" (vs. plain rdfs:domain in OWL). Now, arguably, this signals your intention that the property in question is an object property (and the object of the assertion is a class). But there are cases where nothing is ambiguous, but the author didn't intend for a property to be punned as a class (current declarations don't enforce this bit). Thus, some form of declaration could express this bit of authorial intent. Comment 2 by bparsia, Aug 13, 2007 See also: http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=37 But this deals more with the syntax, afaict.
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 04:34:37 UTC