- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:22:48 +0000
- To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- CC: "Booth, David (HP Software - Boston)" <dbooth@hp.com>
One question that came up in HP discussion was whether the proposed resolution to ISSUE-3 would break the monotonicity requirement for semantic extensions http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#MonSemExt I suggested that the proposal does break this requirement. Here are the test cases, are these correct? Here is a simple test case: A: _:a rdf:type owl:Thing. eg:dp rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . _:a eg:dp "foo". B: _:b rdf:type owl:Thing. eg:dp rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty . _:b eg:dp "foo". A simple-entails B. A simple-entails A. A owl-1.0-dl-entails B. A owl-1.0-dl-entails A. A does not owl-1.1-dl-entail A. A does not owl-1.1-dl-entail B. If I have understood some of the other aspects of OWL 1.1 DL then also the following: C: _:c eg:dp "foo". D: _:d eg:dp "foo". C simple-entails C. C simple-entails D. C does not owl-1.1-dl-entail C. C does not owl-1.1-dl-entail D. Note: these show why this change while in keeping with Peter's characterization [1] of the relationship between OWL Full and OWL DL (OWL DL is weaker than OWL Full), misses the relationship between OWL DL and RDFS, which is - on the syntactic subset that is OWL DL, OWL DL is stronger than RDFS. Jeremy [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0162
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 11:23:27 UTC