- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:41:18 +0100
- To: "'W3C OWL Working Group'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, I seem to remember that we explicitly excluded owl:Thing from OWL 2 RL, on the account that it is difficult to support in OWL 2 RL/RDF. The objection there was that the extension of owl:Thing would become very large. As a consequence, the rules axiomatizing owl:Thing were removed from OWL 2 RL/RDF; but then, to make Theorem PR1 hold, we removed owl:Thing from OWL 2 RL as well. I'm not 100% sure of this, but it seems to me that this is what happened. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de] > Sent: 12 August 2009 23:44 > To: mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de > Cc: W3C OWL Working Group; Bernardo Cuenca Grau; Boris Motik; Ian Horrocks; > Zhe Wu; Achille Fokoue > Subject: RE: owl:Thing in RL profile? > > Hi! > > Markus Krötzsch wrote: > > >Bothering you again with the below question. If this is a bug we should > >probably get it fixed soon. -- Markus > > > >On Samstag, 8. August 2009, Markus Krötzsch wrote: > >> The forwarded email below asks the question whether assertions of the > >> form > >> > >> ClassAssertion(owl:Thing auto) > >> > >> are allowed in OWL RL. They seem to be excluded by the grammar, but > >> maybe this is a bug rather than deliberate design. > > Hm, maybe I'm missing something (it's much too late in the day, literally > :)), but it looks to me that this would break theorem PR1 [1]. For example, > look at the graphs > > G1 := { > ex:o rdf:type owl:Ontology . > ex:drivenBy rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . > ex:auto ex:drivenBy ex:alice . > } > > G2 := { > ex:o rdf:type owl:Ontology . > ex:auto rdf:type owl:Thing . > } > > With owl:Thing being allowed to appear as classes in class assertions, the > reverse RDF mappings for both G1 and G2 would be in the OWL 2 RL syntactic > fragment, and the pair <G1,G2> would satisfy the premises of PR1. Further, > G1 direct entails G2. But G2 cannot be inferred from G1 via the OWL 2 RL/RDF > rules. > > Of course, this could as well be considered a problem with PR1, or with the > RL/RDF rules... > > Good night, > Michael > > [1] <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Profiles#Theorem-PR1> > > >>If not, we need to revisit > >> profile classifications of some test cases. > >> > >> Feedback (esp. by the Profiles editors) is welcome. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> Markus > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider > Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) > Tel : +49-721-9654-726 > Fax : +49-721-9654-727 > Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de > WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider > ======================================================================= > 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, RP Karlsruhe > Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael Flor, > Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer > Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus > =======================================================================
Received on Thursday, 13 August 2009 06:43:10 UTC