- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:45:26 +0200
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A08BDA45@judith.fzi.de>
Hi Peter! Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >> >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 > >Yes, in OWL 1 Full, but not in the RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL 1 >DL. > >In OWL 1 DL there can be functional data properties, which are not >object properties. Ok, this clarifies things. Thanks! The WG will have to decide whether we want to have such an "RDF style" OWL-DL clone or not in OWL 2. I cannot see a demand in the charter for such a language. And I do not remember that there was any advocacy in the WG or by someone else in favor for it (although I remember that there was once a mail from a HP employee bringing this language into play). And I, personally, do not see any value in such a language, but see a lot of disadvantages instead. Anyway, I will raise an issue. And, independently on the outcome, I am going to change the axiomatic triples to applying the RDFS vocabulary. Cheers, Michael
Received on Monday, 21 April 2008 08:46:07 UTC