Re: ISSUE: OWL-DL compatibility

Yes, mapping classes using I_C is incorrect.
As I mentioned in a previous email, a=b
among classes cannot be mapped into an equality in BLD because predicates are
not individuals, and equality is defined only among individuals.

michael

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:52:35 +0100
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> I realized there was a problem in the definition of the semantics of
> RIF-OWL DL combinations. Individual, class, and property identifiers
> were all mapped to objects in the domain D using the same mapping
> function I_C. This means that if two individuals a,b were equated (a=b),
> their class interpretations would be equated as well (i.e., a(?x) <->
> b(?x) would follow from). This is not in line with the OWL direct semantics.
> Therefore, I added a mapping function I_C' to the definition of
> dl-semantic structures that is used in the context of class and property
> identifiers, i.e., b and c in a#b, b##c, a[b -> d], and a[rdf:type -> c].
> 
> This change does not impact the embedding in section 9.2. In fact, the
> embedding is incorrect for the old (buggy) definition, but is correct
> for the new definition.
> 
> 
> Best, Jos
> 
> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> > Michael Kifer wrote:
> >   
> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:06:06 +0100
> >> Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> >>
> >>   
> >>     
> >>>>>> Unless anyone else has an opinion, Jos are you willing to make that change?
> >>>>>>           
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> I updated the syntax and semantics of RIF-OWL DL combinations, as well
> >>>>> as the embedding of RIF-OWL 2 RL combinations accordingly:
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>           
> >>>> Thanks Jos.
> >>>> Please see questions within.
> >>>>
> >>>>       
> >>>>         
> >>>>> - in class membership formulas a#b, b must be a constant symbol
> >>>>> - in subclass formulas b##c, c,b must be constant symbols
> >>>>> - subclass formulas may only occur as facts
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I imposed the last restriction, because I believe that in BLD-OWL 2 RL
> >>>>> combinations, using subclass statements in rule bodies necessarily
> >>>>> amounts to have been to introduce universal quantification in the body,
> >>>>> making such combinations outside horn, which I think is undesirable.
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>           
> >>>> Can you elaborate? How does this introduce universal quantification? 
> >>>>       
> >>>>         
> >>> The semantic correspondence between subclasses in OWL and ## in RIF is
> >>> defined as follows [1]:
> >>>
> >>> C(c) is a subset of C(d) whenever Itruth(Isub(IC(<c>),IC(<d>))) = t, for
> >>> any two IRIs c and d
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >> Just to be clear: "whenever" means "if" here, right?
> >>   
> >>     
> >
> > Yes.
> >   
> >>   
> >>     
> >>> Now, since there is a strict separation between the interpretation of
> >>> individuals and classes in the OWL direct semantics, we cannot objects
> >>> in Dind to represent classes. Thus, like we did for frame formulas, we
> >>> need to change the interpretation of subclass formulas [2]:
> >>>
> >>> Isub is a mapping D × D → D
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If we now want to embed this modified RIF into standard RIF [3] the only
> >>> embedding I can come up with for b##c is
> >>> (a)  Forall ?x (tr'(c)(?x) :- tr'(b)(?x))
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >> So, where is the universal quantifier in the body?
> >> What you have here is an axiom schema in RIF of the form:
> >>
> >> Forall ?x (tr'(c)(?x) :- tr(b)##tr(c) and tr'(b)(?x))
> >>   
> >>     
> >
> > I was also originally thinking about such an axiom schema, but that will
> > not work, since class identifiers are not in Dind.
> > This axiom schema would create unwanted connections between individuals
> > in Dind and classes.
> >
> > Consider for example an OWL ontology with the statements:
> > a=b
> > a subclass c
> >
> > This ontology does not entail b subclass c. When adding the mentioned
> > axiom and a##c to the ontology, b subclass c is entailed.
> >
> >
> > Cheers, Jos
> >
> >   
> >> It does not mean that this axion is substituted in the body of a rule whenever
> >> c##b appears there. Otherwise, you would be claiming that Horn F-logic is not
> >> Horn, for example.
> >>
> >> michael
> >>
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>   
> >>     
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Semantics_of_RIF-OWL_DL_Combinations
> >>> [2]
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Modified_Semantics_for_RIF_Subclass.2C_Membership.2C_and_Frame_Formulas
> >>> [3]
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Embedding_RIF_DL-document_formulas_into_RIF_BLD
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >>>> And why
> >>>> does it matter anyway?
> >>>> We already have universal quantification on the OWL side, so any OWL
> >>>> predicate that occurs in a rule body potentially brings in universal
> >>>> quantification. A combination of OWL+Horn is not Horn, so I don't understand
> >>>> your concerns.
> >>>>       
> >>>>         
> >>> A combination of OWL 2 RL (which is Horn) with Horn should be Horn as
> >>> well, IMHO.
> >>> Besides, full OWL 2 DL does not introduce arbitrary universal
> >>> quantification. In particular, formulas of the form (a) cannot appear
> >>> inside axioms. If formulas of the form (a) would be allowed to appear in
> >>> the bodies of rules, known techniques for reasoning with DL-safe
> >>> OWL+Horn cannot be used for RIF-OWL DL combinations.
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >>>>> Besides, having subclass statements in rules without allowing variables
> >>>>> does not seem all that useful.
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>           
> >>>> We don't really know that. If there is a legitimate concern -- then yes. But I
> >>>> don't understand your concern, so please elaborate.
> >>>>       
> >>>>         
> >>> To summarize: my main concerns are that if a##b is allowed in rule bodies:
> >>>
> >>> - it is not possible to use rules reasoning with RIF-OWL2RL combinations
> >>> - it is not possible to use know techniques for reasoning with DL-safe
> >>> OWL+Horn for DL-safe RIF-OWL DL combinations
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers, Jos
> >>>
> >>>     
> >>>       
> >>>> cheers
> >>>> michael
> >>>>
> >>>>       
> >>>>         
> >>>>> Best, Jos
> >>>>>
> >>>>>         
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>>>>>           
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>>>> Yes, I agree that 3a is a reasonable fix. 3b is too big of a change,
> >>>>>>> and I was
> >>>>>>> not suggesting it for this round.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> michael
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:53:32 -0500
> >>>>>>> Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>             
> >>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>>> I read this a little more carefully.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Basically, the issue is whether to add some correspondence between
> >>>>>>>> rif:subclass and rdf:subclass and between rif:type and rdf:type *in
> >>>>>>>> the OWL compatibility section* of SWC.  Such a correspondence is
> >>>>>>>> already there for RDF compatibility, but Michael noted that it is not
> >>>>>>>> "inherited" by the "OWL-DL" (now know as OWL Direct Semantics)
> >>>>>>>> section.  So, currently in SWC, the OWL-DL compatibility has no
> >>>>>>>> correspondence between the rather obvious type/subclass relations in
> >>>>>>>> the two languages.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree this is a problem and should be fixed, and option #1 in
> >>>>>>>> Michael's analysis, copied below (to leave it as is) is unacceptable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Option #2 is to just add a sentence to the text saying there is no
> >>>>>>>> correspondence between owl and rif type/subclass.  This is less than
> >>>>>>>> satisfactory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Option #3 is to "fix" it somehow, and there are two variations there,
> >>>>>>>> I'll call them 3a (just repeat the correspondences from RDFS in
> >>>>>>>> OWL-DL) and 3b (do the best possible job mapping between owl and rif
> >>>>>>>> subclass).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> </chair>I prefer option 3a.  I agree with Jos' analysis of option 3b
> >>>>>>>> and think it is too big a change.<chair>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As chair, I am also willing to accept 2 or 3a as an oversight and bug
> >>>>>>>> fix (I personally thought the correspondence between type and
> >>>>>>>> subclass were "inherited" from the RDF correspondence, so 3a would
> >>>>>>>> just make it the way I thought it was), however 3b seems to me,
> >>>>>>>> procedurally, to be much more significant and requires a new last
> >>>>>>>> call for SWC.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -Chris
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jos de Bruijn wrote:
> >>>>>>>>               
> >>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>>>>> In today's telecon I was asked to reanimate the issue of OWL
> >>>>>>>>>> compatibility,
> >>>>>>>>>> which was discussed 1 month ago.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Here is the relevant message:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0017.html
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The current situation is a bug, IMO. If it isn't a bug then at
> >>>>>>>>>> least that part
> >>>>>>>>>> of the document is very unsatisfactory and obscure. Jos proposed 3
> >>>>>>>>>> solutions:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1- leave things as they are, assuming that # and ## are not of
> >>>>>>>>>> interest
> >>>>>>>>>>    to users of RIF-OWL DL combinations
> >>>>>>>>>> 2- explain the use of # and ## in the document (this would
> >>>>>>>>>> certainly not
> >>>>>>>>>>    be a substantive change, so we should not run into procedural
> >>>>>>>>>> problems)
> >>>>>>>>>> 3- define the semantics of # and ## in RIF-OWL DL combinations in a
> >>>>>>>>>>    similar fashion as in RIF-RDF combinations: a one-to-one
> >>>>>>>>>> correspondence
> >>>>>>>>>>    between # and OWL class membership statements and implication
> >>>>>>>>>> between ##
> >>>>>>>>>>    and OWL subclassing.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The easiest for him would be to do nothing (1), thus leaving things
> >>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory and obscure. His next choice is (3), which is also
> >>>>>>>>>> my choice and
> >>>>>>>>>> the "right thing to do."  (3) stretches things a little, but it can
> >>>>>>>>>> be argued
> >>>>>>>>>> that it is a simple fix.
> >>>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>>                     
> >>>>>>>>> In my earlier e-mail to Michael referred to I did not say what my
> >>>>>>>>> preference is among the mentioned options.  I guess arguments can be
> >>>>>>>>> made for all three options, so in fact I do not have a strong
> >>>>>>>>> preference, but I do have a concern about option (3): implementation
> >>>>>>>>> might be harder.  If, for example, implementation is done through
> >>>>>>>>> embedding in other rules system, like the embedding of RIF-OWL2RL
> >>>>>>>>> combination in the appendix of the document, quite a few rules need to
> >>>>>>>>> be added for the ## construct.
> >>>>>>>>> In particular, for every pair of distinct class names (A,B), we need to
> >>>>>>>>> add the rule:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Forall ?x (?x[rdf:type -> B] :- And(?x[rdf:type -> A] A##B))
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This means adding a quadratic number of rules.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dealing with # is easy: in the mapping of RIF DL-document formulas to
> >>>>>>>>> RIF documents [1] we simply map a#b to tr'(b)(a). Clearly, we would
> >>>>>>>>> restrict b in formulas a#b to constant symbols.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [1]
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#Embedding_RIF_DL-document_formulas_into_RIF_BLD
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>> Solution (2) is more work. It fixes the obscurity aspect, not the
> >>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory aspect of the definitions. So, (3) seems like the
> >>>>>>>>>> best way to
> >>>>>>>>>> proceed.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Solution (3) still leaves some problems, which are unrelated to the
> >>>>>>>>>> above
> >>>>>>>>>> issues. In the current semantics, subclassing in RIF implies
> >>>>>>>>>> subclassing in
> >>>>>>>>>> OWL/RDF, but not vice versa.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In this regard, I would like to point to my follow-up message
> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2009Sep/0019.html
> >>>>>>>>>> Here I proposed a stronger semantics, which fixes this
> >>>>>>>>>> non-entailment problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>>                     
> >>>>>>>>> Michael proposed the following semantics:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> {(A,B) | A rdfs:subclassOf B and A != B on the RDF side}
> >>>>>>>>>                 = {(A,B) | A##B on the RIF side}
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I feel that this would take us out of Horn, even when considering
> >>>>>>>>> Simple
> >>>>>>>>> entailment, because implementation would require (classical) negation.
> >>>>>>>>> At least, that is the only way I current see how this could be
> >>>>>>>>> implemented. As we know, classical negation in the body amounts to
> >>>>>>>>> disjunction in the head, so we would end up adding the following
> >>>>>>>>> rule to
> >>>>>>>>> the embedding of RDF-RDF combinations:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Forall ?x, ?y (Or(?x##?y ?x=?y) :- ?x[rdfs:subClassOf -> ?y])
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For RIF-OWL DL combinations such a semantics is even more problematic,
> >>>>>>>>> because subclass in OWL DL means subset relation between class
> >>>>>>>>> extensions, so the condition would look something like (X^C is the
> >>>>>>>>> class
> >>>>>>>>> extension of X):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> {(A,B) | A^C subset B^C and A^C != B^C on the RDF side}
> >>>>>>>>>                 = {(A,B) | A##B on the RIF side}
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (Actually, we will need to apply some tricks here, since A and B are
> >>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>> constants on the OWL side, but I guess we can come up with a definition
> >>>>>>>>> that kind-of achieves this semantics)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A formula implementing the => direction of the condition for a pair of
> >>>>>>>>> class names A,B would look something like (again, negation in the body
> >>>>>>>>> becomes disjunction in the head):
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Forall ?x (
> >>>>>>>>>   Or(A##B
> >>>>>>>>>      And(Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> B] :- ?x[rdf:type -> A])
> >>>>>>>>>          Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> A] :- ?x[rdf:type -> B])))
> >>>>>>>>>   :-
> >>>>>>>>>   Forall ?x(?x[rdf:type -> B] :- ?x[rdf:type -> A]))
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So, I would not be in favor of extending either the semantics of RDF or
> >>>>>>>>> the semantics of OWL DL combinations with such a condition.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Best, Jos
> >>>>>>>>>                 
> >>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>> This would certainly be a substantive change semantically (although
> >>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>> significant textually). If we don't have the energy to do it this
> >>>>>>>>>> time,
> >>>>>>>>>> maybe for RIF 1.1.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> michael
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>                   
> >>>>>>>>>>                     
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 20:30:02 UTC