- From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:17:17 +0000
- To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
Looks good to me -- thanks! Ian On 10 Feb 2009, at 19:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > I am proposing the following response to LC Comment 43 sections 2, 5, > and 6. > > In the absence of disagreement I suggest that the RDF mapping document > be modified as suggested in the response, the modifications be > accepted > as editorial, and the response sent out. > > peter > > > > Dear Zhe, > > Thank you for your message > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2009Jan/0083.html > on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts. > > Your message contains multiple sections, affecting more than one > document, and will thus generate multiple replies. This response > is for sections 2, 5, and 6, which affect the mapping from the > functional syntax to RDF graphs. > > > ************************ > 5. In the RDF mapping document, is it possible to keep OWL 2 > vocabulary > a bit smaller by replacing owl:minQualifiedCardinality with the > existing owl:minCardinality? Same idea applies to > owl:qualifiedCardinality, owl:maxQualifiedCardinality. After all, > owl:onClass is there to differentiate the qualified vs. > non-qualified case. > ************************ > > The problem here has to do with monotonicity of the RDF semantics. > Consider a qualified min cardinality translation, i.e., something like > MinCardinality(2 ex:p ex:C), which translates into > > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction > _:x owl:minQualifiedCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger > _:x owl:onProperty ex:p > _:x owl:onClass ex:C > > If this suggestion was made the translation would instead be > > _:x rdf:type owl:Restriction > _:x owl:minCardinality "2"^^xsd:nonNegativeInteger > _:x owl:onProperty ex:p > _:x owl:onClass ex:C > > However, this contains the three-triple translation of > MinCardinality(2 > ex:p), and The RDF semantic will pick this up, and augment the meaning > of the above four triples with the meaning for MinCardinality(2 ex:p). > > For minimum cardinality things are not so bad, because > MinCardinality(2 > ex:p ex:C) implies MinCardinality(2 ex:p). However for Cardinality > and > MaxCardinality this is not the case, and an incorrect meaning will be > determined. > > This kind of problem has been known ever since the original Web > Ontology > Working Group. The RDF mapping document does not contain all the > rationale for the various choices in the mapping, so no change is > envisioned in response to this part of your comment. > > > ************************ > 2. very minor typo > RDF mapping document has a typo in Section 2.2. s/auhtor/author/. > > 6. In Section 2.2 of RDF mapping document, are we missing a > translation? > It is unclear how the second example in 2.2 is translated into > triples. The AnnotationAssertion in Table 1 has three > parameters and > that example has only two parameters for AnnotationAssertion. > ************************ > > The second example in Section 2.2 is > > AnnotationAssertion( a:Peter > Annotation( > Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane ) > rdfs:label "Peter Griffin" > ) > ) > > This is not syntactically correct. The example was not correctly > changed from a previous syntax for annotation assertions. The correct > example is > > AnnotationAssertion( > Annotation( a:author a:Seth_MacFarlane ) > rdfs:label a:Peter "Peter Griffin" > ) > > namely a singly-annotated annotation assertion. > > Thank you for pointing out this error. You also point out the > mis-typing of a:author in the example. > > The document has been changed to fix these editorial mistakes. The > diffs > can be found at .................................. > > > Please acknowledge receipt of this email to > <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should > suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you > are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment. > > Regards, > Peter F. Patel-Schneider > on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group >
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 23:17:58 UTC