RE: A problem with HasKey in the functional-style syntax

Hello,

Yes, that's correct.

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
> Sent: 19 March 2009 08:42
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'W3C OWL Working Group'
> Subject: Re: A problem with HasKey in the functional-style syntax
> 
> HI Boris,
> 
> just checking, to be sure:
> 
> - this does affect the RDF Mapping, but only in the func syntax side.
> Ie, the RDF representation of HasKey does not change
> - the grammar rules for OWL RL should also be updated but not the RDF Rules
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm sorry -- you are right; I misplaced the pipe symbol. It should have been
> > like this:
> >
> > HasKey := 'HasKey' '(' ClassExpression
> >     [ 'ObjectPropertyList' '(' { ObjectPropertyExpression } ')' ]
> >     [ 'DataPropertyList'   '(' { DataPropertyExpression   } ')' ]
> > ')'
> >
> > We should also add a restriction that there should be at least one (object
> or
> > data) property.
> >
> > This suggestion is motivated by the UML diagram. In fact, to get closer to
> UML,
> > we could do this:
> >
> > HasKey := 'HasKey' '(' ClassExpression
> >     [ 'ObjectProperties' '(' { ObjectPropertyExpression } ')' ]
> >     [ 'DataProperties'   '(' { DataPropertyExpression   } ')' ]
> > ')'
> >
> > I think I'd prefer not to repeat 'ObjectProperty' in front of each property.
> So
> > unless anyone objects, I'd go with the latter suggestion.
> >
> > Thanks again for catching this!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Michael Schneider [mailto:schneid@fzi.de]
> >> Sent: 18 March 2009 20:36
> >> To: Boris Motik
> >> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
> >> Subject: RE: A problem with HasKey in the functional-style syntax
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> >>> On Behalf Of Boris Motik
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:37 PM
> >>> To: 'W3C OWL Working Group'
> >>> Subject: A problem with HasKey in the functional-style syntax
> >>>
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I've just noticed a problem in the functional-style syntax for HasKey.
> >>> The
> >>> current syntax is
> >>>
> >>> HasKey( CE P1 ... Pn )
> >>>
> >>> where Pi are either object or data properties. But this means that the
> >>> axiom is
> >>> not fully typed. Consider, for example, the following axiom:
> >>>
> >>> HasKey( a:MyClass a:MyProperty )
> >>>
> >>> >From this axiom alone, it is not clear whether a:MyProperty is an
> >>> object or a
> >>> data property. Effectively, this means that we haven't addressed
> >>> correctly the
> >>> comment by Matthew Horridge.
> >>>
> >>> My proposal for fixing this is to write the above axiom like this:
> >>>
> >>> HasKey( a:MyClass ObjectPropertyList( a:MyProperty ) )
> >>>
> >>> More generally, the grammar would be like this:
> >>>
> >>> HasKey := 'HasKey' '(' ClassExpression
> >>>    'ObjectPropertyList' '(' { ObjectPropertyExpression } ')' |
> >>>    'DataPropertyList'   '(' { DataPropertyExpression   } ')'
> >>> ')'
> >> I don't understand this proposal. It seems to only cover the special cases,
> >> where there are exclusively either object properties or data properties in
> >> the argument list. What about mixtures of object and data properties?
> >>
> >> I first also wondered what this does buy us (or Matthew) at all, since this
> >> doesn't make the HasKey axiom "typed". But I think what you mean is that
> the
> >> declarations will be at least "local" to the axiom here, and won't be
> spread
> >> around over the whole ontology, as it is currently the case. Is this right?
> >>
> >> Then, the obvious idea to me would be to generally allow for "inlined"
> >> entity declarations, as in
> >>
> >>   HasKey ( Class(CE) ObjectProperty(P1) DataProperty(P2) ObjectProperty(P3)
> >> DataProperty(P4) )
> >>
> >> One can allow this for every type of axiom, and make it mandatory in cases
> >> such as for the properties in HasKey axioms.
> >>
> >> Yes, I know, yet another larger change. But is there an alternative? (Maybe
> >> I totally miss the point here?)
> >>
> >> Best,
> >> Michael
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
> >> =======================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 08:54:46 UTC