Re: Top object and data properties added (as part of my open ACTION-160)

Hi Boris,

In the past you have vented concern about the impact of the top  
property on reasoner performance. On that ground, you said it would be  
a bad idea to have the top property in OWL 2, as when it is available,  
people will use it whether they need it or not. And, in addition to  
this, the property can already be defined using existing vocabulary.

This led me think of a possible alternative solution to ISSUE-112, and  
I was wondering whether it is feasible (and not too scruffy). The  
general idea is that instead of having a standard top property  
analogous to Thing, we introduce a top property /type/ analogous to  
e.g. functional and transitive property types. Any property with this  
type is then given the semantics of /the/ top property.

Does that make any sense?


On 16 jun 2008, at 18:59, Boris Motik wrote:

> Hello,
> In ACTION-160 I was tasked to extend the documents with the top and  
> bottom properties and with easy keys. I thought it would be a
> good idea to show a diff separately for these two additions. Hence,  
> here are the diffs for the top property:
> Structural specification:
> Semantics:
> Mapping to RDF and XML Serialization do not need a change (they just  
> inherit the new declarations from the structural specification
> document).
> Profiles:
> In the Profiles document, EL++ is the only profile that supports  
> owl:TopObjectProperty, owl:BottomObjectProperty,
> owl:TopDataProperty, owl:BottomDataProperty. Carsten, could you  
> please confirm that adding these to EL++ does not wreak havoc in the
> language?
> Regards,
> 	Boris

Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email:    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands

Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 07:49:35 UTC