- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:39:00 +0200
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- CC: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <480D5DD4.60302@w3.org>
Alan, the other Alan asked not to discuss unaccepted issues yet, so I am not sure it is o.k. to go into this at this time:-( Ivan Alan Wu wrote: > Ivan, > > Ivan Herman wrote: >> Hi Alan (and the other editors of the document, actually...:-) >> >> In the meantime I found a similar issue with Rule #4 and #5: those two >> rules are on Object and Datatype Properties, but a similar rule might >> be necessary for rdfs Properties, too. >> >> However: after all, I think we should _not_ just massage the rule set. >> I think we should look at the proposed Issue 116 first (if the Working >> Group accepts it, that is). >> >> Indeed, it must be decided whether we want axiomatic triples in the >> first place and, if the decision on that question is 'yes', then which >> axiomatic triples we are talking about. Those may influence the rule >> set as it is now. Eg, not only could we add an axiomatic triple saying >> (owl:Class owl:sameAs rdfs:Class) for the Full version (which would >> solve the problem I raised), but by adding things like >> >> (rdfs:subClassOf rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty) >> >> some of the rules in the current rule set become superfluous. >> >> But... the whole issue of how OWL-R-Full and OWL-R-DL relate to one >> another becomes then an issue, and we should carefully consider that, >> too... Ie, this warrants a more fundamental discussion in my view... >> > Do you have an example which shows the relationship between OWL-R-Full & > OWL-R-DL becomes problematic after adding some axiomatic triples? > > Thanks, > Zhe > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2008 03:39:34 UTC