Re: [OWL compatibility] #, ## in OWL compatibility

Yes. But earlier Chris mentioned syntax only. 
Anyway, all this makes the treatment of type/subclassOf and #/## much more
uniform.

michael

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:48:07 +0200
Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:

> Well, that's just the syntax. We would also need to introduce conditions
> in the definition of common-RIF-OWL DL-interpretation [1] analogous to
> conditions 7 and 8 in the definition of common-RIF-RDF-interpretation [2].
> 
> 
> Cheers, Jos
> 
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Semantics_of_RIF-OWL_DL_Combinations
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wiki/SWC#Common_RIF-RDF_Interpretations
> 
> Michael Kifer wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:27:39 -0400
> > Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> So returning to the point, you would need to restrict the # relation in RIF/OWL 
> >> combinations further than they are in RIF/RDFS, and that's all? 
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> >> What's the restriction?
> > 
> > See the 2nd par in
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-rdf-owl/#Syntax_of_RIF-OWL_Combinations
> > 
> > A similar restriction should be imposed on a#b and b##c.
> > That is, b,c must be constants.
> > 
> > michael
> > 
> > 
> >> Michael Kifer wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:01:51 +0200
> >>> Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> Also, doesn't 
> >>>>>>>> BLD allow the range and domain of # to be much larger than OWL-DL does for type?  
> >>>>>>> That has already been taken care of by the restrictions imposed by RIF/OWL-DL
> >>>>>>> combo.  
> >>>>>> Such restrictions are currently not there, but they could be added.
> >>>>> My understanding is that the restrictions are there
> >>>>> for ...[rdfs:subclassOf->...] and we simply need to re-use them for ##.
> >>>> Well, not for subclassof (this plays no role in RIF-OWL DL
> >>>> compatibility), but it is there for rdf:type.
> >>> yes. I keep sliding into that rdfs:subclassOf heresy :-)
> >>>
>

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2009 19:53:39 UTC