- From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:42:31 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-142 (Rdlrelation): Problems with statement re: relationship between OWL-RL DL and OWL-RL Full http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/142 Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg On product: http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Relationship_between_OWL-R_DL_and_OWL-R_Full Spec says: "let O be an OWL-R DL ontology in which no URI is used both as an object and a data property; and let F be a set of assertions of the following form" But O already includes assertions like those in F and more. What's meant is O is an ontology in something less than OWL-R DL. Also, it is unclear what happens in the case of datatype inconsistencies. (I think nothing in the case of the rules). So it is unclear to me how to interpret the condition F is a consequence of O under the OWL 2 DL semantics if and only if RDF(F) is a consequence of RDF(O) ∪ AXIOMS under the standard first-order semantics. In cases such as: PropertyDomain(p1 xsd:string) PropertyAssertion(p1 x "1"^^xsd:int)), as in OWL-DL everything follows from such an inconsistency, but this isn't inconsistent according with the rules currently stated.
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 20:43:06 UTC