- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 23:43:53 -0400
- To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Based on your comment and some other conversation, perhaps a better choice is EquivalentClasses(ObjectIntersectionOf(ObjectOneOf(John) ObjectHasValue(hasMother Mary)) owl:Nothing ) This has a better parallel for NegativeDataPropertyAssertion, in that it can be valid OWL 1.0 DL. (no complement of oneOf(literal) in OWL 1.0) -Alan On Mar 24, 2008, at 8:01 AM, Michael Schneider wrote: > Hi, Alan! > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg >> Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2008 3:48 PM >> To: Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG >> Subject: Proposal to resolve ISSUE-81 >> >> >> To resolve this issue I propose that NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion >> be transformed into the equivalent class assertion. In order to >> support tools that wish to preserve the presentation of this axiom as >> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion we use the axiom annotation mechanism >> with a new annotation property: syntaxHint. syntaxHint would be >> considered optional - not all tools need serialize using it, nor all >> tool pay attention to it. >> >> So >> NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(hasMother John Mary) >> >> Is translated in to >> >> ClassAssertion( >> Annotation(syntaxHint NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion) >> John ObjectAllValuesFrom(hasMother ObjectComplementOf(ObjectOneOf >> (Mary)))) > > I will only talk here about having this as an RDF syntax for > negative property assertions. I won't talk about the functional > syntax. > > I would not totally object to your proposal, but let me say that I > have a personal preference for a more direct encoding. > > Aside from the round-tripping issue (ignoring your "syntaxHint" > annotation for the moment :-)), I can also see a slight semantic > issue with the above encoding, in particular for /data/ property > assertions. I feel that the following idea might be worth to be > considered: Statements of the form > > NegativeDataPropertyAssertion(dp s o) > > should be allowed, where 'dp' denotes a data property, and 'o' > denotes an individual(!) instead of a datavalue. The reason is that > I just want to state that the triple "s p o" does *not* exist, and > for an 'o', which does *not* denote a datavalue, this is, of > course, always a true assertion. > > This is probably a controversial idea. Whatever one's opinion is > here, the approach given by the above encoding will *not* support > this idea: > > * In Full, the object o will be coerced into a datavalue, which > may lead to undesired semantical side effects in certain situations. > > * In DL, if 'o' is an individual, then this will produce an > error, AFAICS. [FIXME: There is no individual/datavalue punning in > 1.1-DL, since URIs cannot denote datavalues?] > > These effects can at least be technically avoided with a direct > encoding such as the current one based on reification. One can, of > course, opt to introduce these effects explictly in such a direct > encoding. Anyway, one has then the /option/ to do so. So what my > idea at least shows is that the above encoding of negative property > assertions carries perhaps a bit more information than necessary. > > But again, as for ISSUE-67, I prefer to avoid RDF reification > (again for political reasons in the first place), and would instead > opt to introduce a dedicated feature specific vocabulary: > > _:x rdf:type owl11:NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion > _:x owl11:propertyAssertionSubject s > _:x owl11:propertyAssertionPredicate p > _:x owl11:propertyAssertionObject o > > And analog for 'owl11:NegativeDataPropertyAssertion' (I won't argue > about names, though). > >> -Alan >> >> meta: ISSUE-103 > > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > 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 Wednesday, 26 March 2008 03:55:57 UTC