- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 20:15:44 -0400
- To: "Dickinson, Ian J" <Ian.Dickinson@hp.com>, "'Guus Schreiber'" <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
At 5:19 PM +0100 5/9/03, Dickinson, Ian J wrote: >Hi Guus, >Thanks for your response. I assumed that, presuming it wasn't just an >accidental editorial artefact in as&s, OntologyProperty was a variant on >AnnotationProperty, in that it is not allowed in property axioms. Do the >updated documents explain why both AnnotationProperty and OntologyProperty >are needed? ISTM that plurality of property types is potentially confusing >to users of the language, especially if the differences between them are >slim, and come down to nuances of the semantic treatment. > >Cheers, >Ian Hi Ian After further reflection the WG has modified the rules in S&AS concerning owl:OntologyProperty. In the S&AS editors draft: http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/syntax.html#2.3.1.3 we read: axiom ::= .... | 'OntologyProperty(' ontologyPropertyID { annotation } ')' which permits user defined ontology properties. In the OWL Reference editors draft, this is recorded with these words: http://www.daml.org/2002/06/webont/owl-ref-proposed#Ontology-def [[ NOTE: The ontology-import construct owl:imports and the ontology-versioning constructs owl:priorVersion, owl:backwardCompatibleWith and owl:inCompatibleWith are defined in the OWL vocabulary as instances of the OWL built-in class owl:OntologyProperty. Instances of owl:OntologyProperty must have the class owl:Ontology as their domain and range. It is permitted to define other instances of owl:OntologyProperty. ]] > Do the > updated documents explain why both AnnotationProperty and OntologyProperty > are needed? Perhaps not, we feel this would give them undue weight. The reason is to ensure that all OWL DL entailments are also OWL Full entailments. > ISTM that plurality of property types is potentially confusing > to users of the language, especially if the differences between them are > slim, and come down to nuances of the semantic treatment. Yes, this is potentially confusing, we hope the new note above helps clarify the situation, In summary we have accepted your comment that: [[ This class does not seem to be referenced or defined anywhere else in the specs (including in owl.owl), and it is not clear what it is representing or what role it is playing. ]] by adding text to OWL Reference. Please let us know, cc-ing public-webont-comments@w3.org, whether this response is satisfactory. Thanks for your comment -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 *** 240-277-3388 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 20:16:01 UTC