Re: bug in RDF compatible semantics for owl:AnnotationProperty

On Nov 17, 2004, at 11:08 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> From: mei@mi.fu-berlin.de
> Subject: maybe it is a bug for owl:AnnotationProperty
> Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:34:34 +0100
>
>> Dear Peter F. Patel-Schneider,
>>
>> hello,
>>
>> i am reading your papers OWL (RDF-Compatible) MT Semantics
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-absyn/rdfs.html, and i found a very small 
>> bug about
>> owl:AnnotationProperty.
>>
>> it was mentioned as I(rdfs:comment) is in IOAP, and the subject-value 
>> of
>> annotation properties is in IOT (namely owl:Thing).
>
> [...]
>
>> Now, the "wine" ontology has the rdfs:comment as one of 
>> owl:AnnotationProperty,
>> but "wine" is an ontology not owl:Thing which should be disjoint with
>> owl:Ontology in OWL DL interpretation. Of course, in OWL Full 
>> interpretation,
>> it is OK :-)
>>
>> maybe, Values for annotation properties could be much less 
>> unconstrained as:
>>  owl:AnnotationProperty EXTi(e)<=(IOTuIX)x(IOTuLVi)
>>
>> maybe, about the above, i made some stupid mistakes :-) if so, i am 
>> very very
>> sorry for bothering you!
>>
>> Thank you very much!
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Sincerely yours, Jing Mei
>
> I believe that you are correct.  I wonder how this bug managed to 
> escape
> attention for so long.

I suppose the distinction is not excercised in any of our tests.
But I'm not sure I'm following exactly. If anyone finds time to
compose a test to demonstrate the distinction, I would like
to take a look.

> I believe that the appropriate correction is to expand the extension of
> annotation properties even further, to include all the appropriate
> syntactic categories.
>
>    EXTi(e) <= (IOT u IOC u IDC u IOOP u IODP u IOAP u IOXP u IX) x 
> (IOT u LVi)
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 04:14:15 UTC