- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:10:03 -0500 (EST)
- To: yzqu@seu.edu.cn
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
From: "Yuzhong Qu" <yzqu@seu.edu.cn> Subject: Re: OWL Lite's restrictions on the use of the OWL vocabulary Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 14:22:50 +0800 > > > 8.3 OWL Lite [ In OWL Reference] says: > > > > > > 1. Class axioms with an owl:equivalentClass statement. In these axioms both > > > the domain and range should be either a class identifier or a property > > > restriction. > > > > > > 2. In value restrictions, only owl:allValuesFrom and owl:someValuesFrom may > > > be used.(not explicitly state whether or not property-restriction type can > > > be used ) > > > > > > 3. Only class descriptions of the class-identifier and property-restriction > > > type are allowed at the righthand-side of domain and range statements for > > > object properties. > > > > > > > > > However. 2.3.1. OWL Lite Axioms [In OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics] > > > says: > > > > > > A. axiom ::= 'EquivalentClasses(' classID { classID } ')' > > > > > > It means that only a class identifier can be the domain and range of an > > > owl:equivalentClass statement. > > > owl:equivalentClass triples can arise from other parts of the abstract > > syntax, so your claim does not follow from this. > > It seems that the another part of the abstract syntax is as follows: > > axiom ::= 'Class(' classID modality { annotation } { super } ')' > modality ::= 'complete' | 'partial' > super ::= classID | restriction > > Yes, it allows the range be either a class identifier or a property > restriction. > > How about the domain of an owl:equivalentClass statement (OWL Lite)? > > Just classID ? or > > classID plus restriction (as in 1/ above)? According to S&AS, just classID. > BTW, Is the modality in OWL DL [2.3.2.1. OWL DL Class Axioms] > > same as the modality in OWL DL [2.3.1.1. OWL Lite Class Axioms]? Yes, is there any reason to think otherwise? > > > B. restriction ::= ...| 'restriction(' individualvaluedPropertyID > > > { 'allValuesFrom(' classID ')'} > > > { 'someValuesFrom(' classID ')' } ... ')' > > > > > > It means that only a class identifier can be used for owl:allValuesFrom > > > and owl:someValuesFrom constructs. > > > > Yes, but this is not what 2/ above says. > > Thanks for your clarification. > > > > C. axiom ::= 'ObjectProperty(' individualvaluedPropertyID { annotation } { > > > 'super(' individualvaluedPropertyID ')'} > > > { 'domain(' classID ')'} { 'range(' classID ')' } ... ')' > > > > > > It means that only a class identifier can be allowed at the > > > righthand-side of domain and range statements for object properties. > > > > Agreed. > > Thanks again! > > > > Which one is the correct statement about the OWL Lite's restrictions on the > > > use of the OWL vocabulary? > > > > Well that is a good question. As the editor of the S&AS document, I would > > say that this document should be definitive. > > > > > Yuzhong Qu > > > > peter > > > > Yuzhong Qu > peter
Received on Monday, 31 March 2003 09:10:24 UTC