W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:10:49 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0A266B3@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "OWL 1.1" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Ivan Herman wrote:

>> I need to speculate, please comment: If I have an RDF graph, which is
>> to be an OWL-R ontology in RDF graph form, then:
>>   (A) If I want to do RDF-based reasoning, I just use the triple rules
>as I
>> would do it in current OWL-R/Full.
>>   (B) If I want to do DL-style reasoning, then
>>       (1) I try to map the graph to functional style syntax by means
>of the
>> reverse RDF mapping.
>>       (2) If the RDF graph could successfully be mapped,
>>           then the resulting functional syntax is checked against the
>> constraints
>>           as provided by the Profiles document (still to be defined,
>> course).
>>       (3) If the functional syntax turns out to be a valid OWL-R
>>           then the model-theoretic semantics as specified in the
>> document
>>           are applied. These are then the OWL-R/DL semantics of this
>> Is it this?
>I think the point of OWL-R is that in, say, 95% of the cases (A) and (B)
>(well, by re-serializing the result of (B) into RDF, that is) the
>resulting set of RDF triples will be identical by some mathematical

I don't understand this statement. What do you mean by "the resulting set of 
RDF triples"? My question started from an /existing/ RDF graph, I didn't talk 
about /producing/ RDF.

Let me say this: As long as the triple rules don't change, then things seem to 
move in the direction which I prefer. It should then even be possible without 
a problem to add the RDFS axiomatic triples and perhaps additional ones for 
OWL R. Why? Because we can then state the following: "If used in "RDF mode", 
the additional axiomatic triples belong to the rule set. If used in "DL mode", 
then they are not taken into account." I suppose that this won't have big 
ramifications for the semantic comparison of the two modes, because such a 
comparison will probably be done in a "Theorem 2" way: Only such entailments 
are actually compared, where the LHS and the RHS are valid OWL-R-DL ontologies 
in RDF graph form. This should cancel out most stuff resulting from the 
additional axiomatic triples. I am not perfectly certain about this claim, but 
this was the way how OWL-DL and OWL-Full (having all the RDFS axiomatic 
triples, of course) have been compared in the past, so there is at least some 
hope that it might work. :)


Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2008 09:11:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC