- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 01 Aug 2002 22:49:50 -0500
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Sorry, that example didn't make the point... On Thu, 2002-08-01 at 22:31, Dan Connolly wrote: > > I don't think I need reasoners to be able > to conclude that something's a FunctionalProperty, > but these formalisms that make the OWL > vocabulary act more like syntax than > terms have another drawback that just occured to me. > > Consider: Trying again... -- db ontology about tables -- db:Table rdf:type rdfs:Class. db:key rdfs:domain db:Table; rdfs:range db:KeyProperty. my:KeyProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:FunctionalProperty. -- Fred's ontology about his order entry system -- fred:Order rdf:type db:Table; db:key fred:customer. -- some data from email about orders -- fred:order24 fred:customer emailRecords:cust543. -- some data from phone calls about orders -- fred:order24 fred:customer phoneRecords:cust34. ==?==> emailRecords:cust543 owl:sameIndividualAs phoneRecords:cust34. > I've been trying to figure out how the > abstract syntax treats cases like this... > > If I understand correctly, I can't write > things like > > SubClassOf(sub=db:KeyProperty, > super=owl:FunctionalProperty) > > because " the abstract syntax form does not mention any of the URI > references that are the normal expansion of the following names: ... ". > > -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-owl-absyn-20020729/#7 > > I think a lot of users expect the OWL vocabulary > to work just like rdfs:domain and rdfs:range > and rdfs:subClassOf: they're names, and they > refer to objects in the domain of discourse, > and they constrain interpretations. > > That's the way this model theory works... > > An OWL model theory layered on RDF > v 1.2 2002/06/28 17:41:12 > http://www.w3.org/2002/06/owlsem55.txt -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 see you in Montreal in August at Extreme Markup 2002?
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2002 23:49:22 UTC