RE: Concrete and abstract domains disjointness

 

However, because of the consequent seperation of object and datatype
properties, one still looses the (simple) ability to connect uniquely
individuals and datatypes. For example,given an ID number, one can never
retrieve the person to whom it corresponds to (using OWL DL of course, but I
doubt if this is possible even in Full). Whould this be so hard for a DL
reasoner to implement?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-rdf-logic-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bernardo.Cuenca@uv.es
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 9:15 PM
> To: Jeremy Carroll; www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> Cc: kotsomit@hpclab.ceid.upatras.gr
> Subject: Re: Concrete and abstract domains disjointness
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  You can also understand the separation from an intuitive 
> point of view. You can assume that the type system already 
> providesways for definition and derivation of datatypes. You 
> don't need the DL language to form new datatypes (DLs are not 
> defined for such a purpose). 
> However, you still need some sort of connection between the 
> object domain and the domain of datatypes. This connection is 
> provided by the datatype properties. this connection can be 
> used to "import" 
> information from the type system and use it to build new 
> concepts (through restrictions on datatype properties)
> 
>  Regards
> 
>  Bernardo Cuenca Grau
> 
> > 
> > Dimitrios A. Koutsomitropoulos wrote:
> > > 
> > > Can somebody explain some formal reason why the concrete and
> abstract
> > > domains (i.e. the datatype and individual sets) have to 
> be disjoint
> in OWL
> > > DL?
> > 
> > I think in addition to the other postings, I would suggest 
> procedural 
> > reasons. Those who like this separation could point to
> implementations 
> > (both real and theoretical algorithms) based on this idea, and had
> the 
> > advantage that Daml+OIL has this separation. Anyone wishing to
> challenge 
> > that really needed to point to working systems, with academic 
> > creditionals, that was as credible. I don't think this point was 
> > seriously challenged.
> > Politically, those who were most likely to want to challenge this 
> > separation were happy enough with OWL Full.
> > 
> > The point of deliberately ignoring your request for 
> *formal* reasons,
> is 
> > that any such reasons will be the views of some (but not all) of the
> WG. 
> > OWL was determined using a process, which was (roughly) to take
> DAML+OIL
> > and raise issues against it. IIRC this issue was not (formally)
> raised, 
> > so the separation is in OWL because it was in DAML+OIL (not for 
> > technical reasons)
> > 
> > 
> > Jeremy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 May 2004 15:54:42 UTC