W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2008

RE: ACTION-93 / ISSUE-63: Initiated work on OWL-1.1-Full semantics

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 23:44:29 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDA0C@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
[slightly related to ISSUE-116]

Hi Peter!

I was about to revise the axiomatic triples, but wasn't clear on some point:

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote on Tuesday, March 25, 2008
in <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Mar/0249.html>:

>5/ The RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL 1.0 would be incorrect if
>	owl:FunctionalProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty

Why is this an error? All instances of the class 'owl:FunctionalProperty'
will certainly be instances of the class rdf:Property, right? And in OWL
Full, the classes 'rdf:Property' and 'owl:ObjectProperty' have identical
class extensions, according to sec. 5.3 of the AS&S. So the above axiomatic
triple is equivalent to

      owl:FunctionalProperty rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property

>   was an axiomatic triple.  Similarly for the domain and range of
>   owl:sameAs and owl:differentFrom.  Similarly for the domain and range
>   of owl:equivalentProperty and the range of owl:onProperty and
>   owl:hasValue.

Analogue questions here. The respective axiomatic triples can be found in:


Of course, if you mean that using 'owl:ObjectProperty' instead of
'rdf:Property' might be confusing (although being technically ok), then I
will change this everywhere.


Received on Sunday, 20 April 2008 21:45:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC