- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 08:23:09 -0400
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > Sorry, that example didn't make the point... To clarify, we want to be able to make the sorts of conclusions: email:cust24 owl:sameIndividualAs phone:cust34. given, FunctionalProperty(fred:customer) and fred:order24 fred:customer email:cust24. fred:order24 fred:customer phone:cust34 . wouldn't something like this be the case under _any_ implementation of FunctionalProperty? (I am assuming that owl:sameIndividualAs is our term for '=') Jonathan: > > 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 Friday, 2 August 2002 08:38:52 UTC