RE: OWL comment - owl:OntologyProperty

Hi Jim,
I accept this resolution of the issue I raised.

Thanks,
Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Hendler [mailto:hendler@cs.umd.edu] 
> Sent: 26 June 2003 01:16
> To: Dickinson, Ian J; 'Guus Schreiber'
> Cc: public-webont-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: OWL comment - owl:OntologyProperty
> 
> 
> 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/s
> yntax.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 Friday, 27 June 2003 04:15:39 UTC