The following rules are relevant to what happens with annotation properties in OWL-RL T(?p1, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p2), T(?x, ?p1, ?y) => T(?x, ?p2, ?y) T(?p, rdfs:domain, ?c), T(?x, ?p, ?y) => T(?x, rdf:type, ?c) T(?p, rdfs:range, ?c), T(?x, ?p, ?y) => T(?y, rdf:type, ?c) T(?p1, owl:equivalentProperty, ?p2), T(?x, ?p1, ?y) => T(?x, ?p2, ?y) T(?p1, owl:equivalentProperty, ?p2), T(?x, ?p2, ?y) => T(?x, ?p1, ?y) T(?p1, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p2), T(?p2, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p3) => T(?p1, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p3) T(?p1, owl:equivalentProperty, ?p2) => T(?p1, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p2), T(?p2, rdfs:subPropertyOf, ?p1) Here are some consequences of these rules. If someone using OWL-RL writes the RDF equivalent of AnnotationProperty(p) PropertyDomain(p c) EntityAnnotation(x Annotation(p y)) then the the rule application will add ClassAssertion(c x) If we have AnnotationProperty(p1) and the triple p rdfs:subPropertyOf p1 Then the rdf equivalent of EntityAnnotation(x Annotation(p1 y)) Will be added. -AlanReceived on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 13:25:45 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC