- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 11:48:27 +0100
- To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "OWL Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A06C294D@judith.fzi.de>
Hi! I couldn't attend yesterday's meeting. So I don't know what the current state of the discussion about punning is, which means that what I say below may already have been said. My point in this mail is about the relation between Punning and OWL-Full, only. I may come up with another point later. >From: Alan Ruttenberg >Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:21 AM >3) [...] How does punning effect OWL Full? Punning is a DL-only feature, and cannot affect the definition of Full, as long as Full is understood to be an RDF compatible language. In RDF, two occurrences of the same name denote the same entity. Full cannot be adjusted to punning semantics without losing its compatibility to RDF's model-theoretic semantics. Maybe the "punning for metamodelling" usecase suggests this, but punning is not a feature in the same sense that QCRs or IFDPs are features. The latter can easily (at least in principle) be given proper semantics in Full, without the danger of getting into conflict with the core RDF semantics. Punning, however, makes more fundamental assertions about what semantical interpretations are, by allowing the same name to denote more than one entity. One can see this in a way that under punning semantics, interpretations are not functions, but are more general relations (not being restricted to having at most a single value from the relation's range for any given value from its domain). Or, alternatively, one can imagine that there are several unrelated interpretation functions for each syntactic category ("I_i(.)" for individuals, "I_c(.)" for classes, etc.). Or one can think about a single, but 2-ary interpretation function, getting both a name and a syntactic category as its arguments. You may choose your favorite form. :) Anyway, for RDF, the form of semantical interpretations is specified in the RDF semantics spec [1], and it cannot be changed to a form needed for punning (except by a future RDF-WG, of course). The practical consequence of this consideration for this OWL-WG is, that the definition of OWL-1.1-Full will not depend on the question, whether DL will have punning or not. Cheers, Michael [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#sinterp -- Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) Tel : +49-721-9654-726 Fax : +49-721-9654-727 Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2008 10:48:51 UTC