W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

I am happy with all the responses. Re: Review of RDF Based semantics [2nd]

From: Zhe Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:47:45 -0400
Message-ID: <49DE26B1.5040805@oracle.com>
To: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
CC: public-owl-wg@w3.org

After some further discussions, I am happy to say that all the comments 
I raised have been addressed by Michael.



> Hi Michael,
>>> Hmmm. When an owl user talks about individual, he/she probably means
>>> those x in his/her ontology
>>> such that x type owl:Thing holds. Here IR is about the interpreted
>>> domain and we call elements of IR individuals.
>>> Isn't it a bit confusing?
>> Under the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics, just as for the original version,
>> the term "individual" refers to the elements of the domain of an 
>> OWL 2 Full interpretation. In this way the term is used several times
>> in the Introduction section, as well as in Section 4. There is no other 
>> meaning of the term "individual" as far as the OWL 2 RDF-Based Semantics 
>> is concerned.
>> Concerning "owl:Thing" and "IR": owl:Thing actually represents IR aka 
>> the whole domain:
>>   ICEXT(I(owl:Thing)) = IR .
> This probably is not a big deal either way. To draw an analogy, I cut 
> & paste the following from Direct semantics. If the word "element" is 
> replaced with "individual", it reads a bit strange.
>     * /? ^I / is the /individual interpretation function/ that assigns
>       to each individual /a ? V_I / an element /(a)^I / ? /?_I /.
>>> I don't quite understand it. The same kind of argument applies to the
>>> pair of owl:complementOf and owl:disjointWith, right?
>> No. Table 3 does /not/ specify the /exact/ property extension
>> for these two properties, but only sais that their property extensions
>> are /subsets/ of IC x IC. This is much less specific than in the case
>> of owl:topObjectProperty, which sais "= IR x IR". The subset relationship
>> can actually be expressed by two axiomatic triples with rdfs:domain and 
>> rdfs:range, the "=" relationship cannot.
> I see it now ;) Thanks,
> Zhe
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2009 16:48:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:58 UTC