- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:25:37 +0200
- To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0803BCC@judith.fzi.de>
This is conversation between Alan and me about the semantics of annotations in 1.0-DL. Cheers, Michael -----Original Message----- From: Michael Schneider Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:09 PM To: 'Alan Ruttenberg' Subject: Annotations in 1.0-DL and 1.1-DL [RE: ACTION-102: The situation of deprecation in OWL-1.0-DL and OWL-1.0-Full] Hi Alan! >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 5:14 AM >To: Michael Schneider >Subject: Re: ACTION-102: The situation of deprecation in >OWL-1.0-DL and OWL-1.0-Full > >[not cc] > >On Mar 19, 2008, at 9:41 AM, Michael Schneider wrote: > > (So this is very weak semantics. However, it actually >*is* semantics. Annotation properties are *not* semantic-free >in OWL-1.0-DL!). > > >Yes, > >AnnotationProperty(a) >Individual(i1 annotation(a "be")) >Individual(i2) >SameIndividuals(i1,i2) > >entails > >Individual(i2 annotation(a "be")) I must confess that I have technical difficulties to either confirm or disprove this claim. First, the 1.0-DL semantics [1] for 'SameIndividual' in sec. 3.3 of [1] is: Directive | Conditions on interpretations --------------------------+------------------------------ SameIndividual(i1 . in) | S(ij) = S(ik) for 1 <= j < k <= n No problem here. Now, the table entry for 'Individual(.)' is: Directive: ---------- Individual([i] --> annotation(p1 o1) ... annotation(pk ok) type(c1) ... type(cm) pv1 ... pvn ) Conditions on interpretations: ------------------------------ EC(Individual([i] --> annotation(p1 o1) ... annotation(pk ok) type(c1) ... type(cm) pv1 ... pvn) ) is nonempty But here I am confused: The function "EC(.)" isn't defined for individuals at all. And I also am not sure whether I understand what the intended semantics is here. Maybe a bug [FIXME], so better let's have a look at the other entities which can be annotated, e.g. classes: Directive: ---------- Class(c --> annotation(p1 o1) ... annotation(pk ok) descr1 ... descrn) Conditions on interpretations: ------------------------------ --> S(c) in EC(annotation(p1 o1)) ... S(c) in EC(annotation(pk ok)) EC(c) subset EC(descr1) ^ ... ^ EC(descrn) Ok, that's clearer now. We see that the entity, which is denoted by class name 'c', is an instance of "EC(annotation(pi oi))". And the semantics for the latter expression is defined in sec. 3.2: Abstract Syntax: --------------- annotation(p o) for o a URI reference Interpretation (value of EC) ----------------------------- {x in R | <x,S(o)> in ER(p) } ('R' denotes the universe/domain, and 'ER(p)' is the property extention of p, i.e. a subset of RxR.) So for the class 'c' above we have for each i: <S(c),S(oi)> in ER(pi) And if SameIndividuals(c c2) # actually not allowed for classes would be allowed in OWL-DL, then we would receive <S(c2),S(oi)> in ER(pi) which would mean that all the annotations of class 'c' are also annotations of class 'c2'. So you seem to be right in principle, although there seems to be a bug in the semantics spec for individuals (but perhaps I overlooked/misunderstood something?). >How does OWL 1.1 avoid this? The 1.1-DL semantics simply seem to ignore annotations which occur in the functional syntax. >From sec. 1 of the semantics WD [2]: "OWL 1.1 allows for annotations of ontologies and ontology entities (classes, properties, and individuals) and ontology axioms. Annotations, however, have no semantic meaning in OWL 1.1 and are ignored in this document." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And, indeed, if you look through the semantics WD, you won't find any annotations in the functional syntax. For example, in table 4: Axiom | Condition --------------------------+----------------------------------------- SameIndividual(a1 ... an) | a_j^Ii = a_k^Ii for each 1 <= j , k <= n As in 1.0-DL semantics, there is no mentioning of annotations here. But unlike the 1.0-DL semantics spec, there is no entry for 'Individual(.)' in the 1.1-DL semantics WD. 1.1-DL uses such expressions only in declarations such as: Declaration(Individual(x)) And declarations do not have semantics in 1.1-DL. I believe this is meant by the following excerpt from sec. 1 of [2]: "Definitions in OWL 1.1 similarly have no semantics. Constructs only used in annotations and definitions, like ObjectProperty, therefore do not show up in this document." Just replace 'ObjectProperty' by 'Individual' in this citation. >-Alan (Ah, well, this mail got again much too long, sorry for this! :-]) Cheers, Michael [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/direct.html> [2] <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Semantics> -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Friday, 4 April 2008 16:26:13 UTC