OWL DL and OWL Full (was Re: comments on RDF mapping)

I think Jeremy's comments raise an important issue that is sometimes  
a bit confused in this WG list so far -- there's a tendency to use  
"OWL" to mean "OWL DL" on the part of some people and to mean "OWL  
FULL" (which is essentially the OWL vocabulary used w/o worrying  
about the DL restrictions).  There are two important constituencies  
who use the term differently - the more formal set which is well- 
represented on the WG, and the people putting OWL to work in the sort  
of broad applications like Twine, who are primarily using a little  
OWL on big RDF graphs.  These may well grow together over time, but  
at the moment I think it is very important that we be clear when we  
work that both of these are important - and make sure when people say  
things like "OWL 1.0 didn't allow" to realize that OWL 1.0 allowed a  
lot of things in Full and less in DL.   The WG was unable to come to  
a consensus that "OWL" should mean one of these or the other, and  
thus we were careful to include the modifiers in both cases.  We need  
to be very sure as we work on "OWL 1.1" that we are taking the same  
care or we risk alienating one or the other of (at least) two  
important user communities.
  -JH




On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:

>
>
>
> Boris Motik wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Not correct.
>
> In OWL 1.0 DL, the triples (1) - (5) is a syntax error.
> Hence, in OWL 1.0, the ontology is OWL Full.
> The subPropertyOf triple (5) is well-defined, by the RDF Semantics.
> Triples (1), (2), (3) and (4) are all logical consequences of (5)  
> and the OWL Full semantics. So there is no problem in OWL 1.0.
>
> All the problems that OWL 1.1 are trying to solve with these five  
> triples arise from OWL 1.1
>
> Jeremy
>
>
>> 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
>>>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180

Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 14:19:24 UTC