Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)

From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: Re: possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 09:58:05 +0100

> Hi, Peter!
> 
> I would like to discuss an OWL-Full related mail, which you sent several weeks ago to this list:
> 
>   "possible way forward on ISSUE-69 (1.1/Full punning) and ISSUE-72 (backwards comptability)"
>   <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0162.html>
> 
> I personally agree with most of the point you write. There is,
> however, a single point which I do not understand, so I have to ask: 
>  
> > Desirable backward-compatibility property:
> > 1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for OWL 1.1 DL entailment
> >    and O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
> >    then O |= O' in OWL 1.1 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.1 RDF
> >    - This says that we keep exact correspondence whereever possible.
> 
> Question: Is it really meant that O and O' have to be valid in
> *1.1*-DL (not 1.0-DL)?

Yes.

> My question has two aspects: (a), I would expect that, when talking
> about backward-compatibility, only OWL-1.0 ontologies are taken into
> account. And (b), some valid 1.1-DL ontologies are invalid in 1.0-DL,
> and I do not know how to read the condition 
> 
>   O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
> 
> in such a case.

> Cheers,
> Michael

The changes that you see are to deal with annotations.  As annotations
are generally not fully handled in OWL 1.0 DL tools, I thought that it
would be better to remove annotations in conclusions, as stated in 

> OWL DL: Ontology Language with Semantic Web basis
> [...]
> * Annotations are not allowed on the right-hand side of entailments.
>   - This fixes the problem noted in ISSUE-72 at the expense of limiting
>     what sort of questions can be asked in OWL DL.

It would probably have been better to make the statement as follows,
adding the stuff within **.  I also fixed up the wording a bit.

Desirable backward-compatibility property:
1/ If O, O' are valid LHS and RHS for *both* OWL 1.1 DL 
   *and OWL 1.0 DL* entailment
   and O |= O' in OWL 1.0 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.0 Full
   then O |= O' in OWL 1.1 DL iff T(O) |= T(O') in OWL 1.1 Full

peter

Received on Friday, 1 February 2008 17:33:12 UTC