- From: Jeff Z. Pan <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 14:45:08 -0000
- To: "Enrico Franconi" <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
- Cc: "Peter Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "Alan Rector" <Alan.Rector@manchester.ac.uk>, <owl@lists.mindswap.org>, <semantic-web@w3c.org>
"Enrico Franconi" <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote: > On 8 Jan 2006, at 21:05, Jeff Z. Pan wrote: >> After reading Alan's following email and the proposed OWL 1.1 >> syntax [1], it seems to me that punning is not a convincing choice >> for metamodeling in OWL 1.1. ( For those who are not familiar with >> punning - punning means that a name, like Person, can be used as >> both an individual and a class and a property.) > > (...) > >> 3.The semantics of punning is not quite intuitive. This can be >> shown in the following example. In the following OWL 1.1 [1] >> ontology, Cat and Kitty are used as both classes and individuals. >> Although Cat and Kitty are the same individual and Ted is a Cat, >> the ontology >> >> Class (Cat partial) >> Class (Kitty partial) >> SameIndividual (Cat Kitty) >> Individual (Ted Cat) >> >> does not entail that Ted is also a Kitty. 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: > > - OWL-FA semantics does not exist yet: the last time I saw it was > severely bugged; it would break wrt normative RDF; it is not > compatible with punning. Do you mean "being not compatible with punning" is a severe bug of [2]? > - Hilog captures more expected inferences than punning but (a) Peter > didn't say that it still leave some expected interesting inferences > out (see Boris' paper for an example), Could you be more specific on what kinds of expected interesting inferences are missing in the Hilog semantics? >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... Which (only) approach do you mean? As far as I understand, Boris' paper [3] propose two approaches: the context (punning) approach and the Hilog approach. > As we proved in [5], normative RDF semantics is completely equivalent > to punning semantics, so there is no break wrt normative RDF. In [5], > we give a complete account of punning semantics with OWL-DL and SPARQL. OK - I will give it a check. Cheers, Jeff [1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html [2] http://www.mindswap.org/2005/OWLWorkshop/sub15.pdf [3] http://dip.semanticweb.org/documents/Boris-Motik-On-the-Properties-of-Metamodeling-in-OWL.pdf [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/ > [5] Jos de Bruijn, Enrico Franconi, Sergio Tessaris (2005). Logical > Reconstruction of normative RDF. Proc. of the Workshosp on OWL > Experiences and Directions (OWLED 2005), Galway, Ireland, November 2005. -- Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/) Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen
Received on Monday, 9 January 2006 14:47:01 UTC