W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2006

Re: [OWL] annotations and meta-modelling in OWL 1.1

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 15:54:47 -0500
Message-Id: <428d71011b3c23eb1eddf878897035f2@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: semantic-web@w3c.org, "Jeff Z.Pan" <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>, Alan Rector <Alan.Rector@manchester.ac.uk>, owl@lists.mindswap.org
To: Enrico Franconi <franconi@inf.unibz.it>

On Jan 8, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Enrico Franconi wrote:

> On 8 Jan 2006, at 21:05, Jeff Z. Pan wrote:
>> This distinguishes the punning semantics from many other semantics, 
>> such as the OWL FA semantics [2], Hilog semantics [3] and RDF 
>> semantics [4].
> I'm not sure that the mentioned alternative to punning are really 
> better:
> - Hilog captures more expected inferences than punning but (a) Peter

s/Peter/Jeff/ ?

>  didn't say that it still leave some expected interesting inferences 
> out (see Boris' paper for an example), and (b) it requires a 
> re-implementation of the OWL reasoners, as Peter noticed.


> - The only approach that would capture exactly meta-modelling with 
> OWL-DL is undecidable (see Boris' paper) - this fact was hidden by 
> Peter...

Ibid? Or am I missing an email from Peter?

 From various conversation with people who use OWL Full, and some 
introspection, I see two primary, if only current, uses of higher order 
like constructs (be they annotations, punning, or some more full blown 
species of metamodeling): Metadata about the "symbolic artefact", e.g., 
who wrote these axioms, when, when last modified, etc. and for ontology 
alignment (e.g., I modeled Wines as a class and you as an instance). I 
am not saying that these are the *only* uses of higher order like 
constructs, but they are *in my experience* what get mentioned. Only 
the latter has potentially interesting modeling impact, and, in 
practice, people are just happy to be able to *mark* these alignments 
and let some other piece of software (usually not a reasoner!) take 
care of, e.g., conversions of data between ontologies.

Since neither of these involves significant cross level entailments, it 
seems like some version of punning suffices conceived as a 
liberalization of annotation properites.

(This also has the advantage of typically only requiring modification 
of the input and output of tools, esp. reasoners.)

Now, I'm not sure that this is *ideal*. There may be some form of 
metamodeling with the legs to make it worth adopting even at the cost 
of revamping tooling. This doesn't seem to be 1.1 material though.

It would be nice if whatever we slide into 1.1 was neatly extendable to 
the Next Great Metamodeling Thing, but eh. We do what we can :) (And 
actually, most can *probably* by tying more interesting semantics to 
the presence of certain bridging axioms. This suggest we should *not* 
overload things like SameIndividual for alignment purposes, but instead 
introduce new sytnax (e.g., correspondsTo).)

Received on Sunday, 8 January 2006 20:54:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:55 UTC