- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 15:15:26 -0500
- To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Here is my initial decision tree document.
Note that it doesn't really have a decision tree in it. I decided to
format the document slightly differently.
I am looking for comments on additions to this document. In particular, I
would like more examples of inferences, queries, and syntax possibilities.
peter
Approaches to OWL
Options for OWL, as I see it
Syntax
1. RDF triples, XML dialect, other
2. Can definitional information show up not at top level,
e.g., john's children are transitive properties?
Expressive Power
3. RDFS
Frames
Simple defined classes (e.g., OWL-lite?)
Powerful DL (e.g., current OWL)
Model Theory
4. Completely RDF compatible, i.e., interpretations are RDF interpretations
with extra conditions
Mostly RDF compatible, e.g., compatible for individuals
Not necessarily RDF compatible
5. Can classes or restrictions be inferred, e.g., if John is a Student and
an Employee does he belong to the intersection of Student and Employee?
Problematic Points in the Option Space
The combination of
1. Syntax is RDF triples
3. Expressive Power is powerful DL
4. Model theory is completely RDF compatible
5. Classes / restrictions are inferrable.
leads to a semantic paradox. This actually doesn't really depend on the
fact that the syntax is RDF triples, but instead on the fact that rdf:type
is a property and thus can be used in restrictions and on the fact that
loops are possible and thus a form of self-reference is possible.
The use of
2. Definitional information can show up not at top level
can lead to difficult, and difficult-to-implement inference.
Potential Proposals for OWL
DAML+OIL
http://www.w3.org/TR/daml+oil-reference
- syntax is RDF triples
- expressive power is powerful DL
- model theory is (close to) RDF model plus additional conditions
- classes / restrictions are not inferrable
D+ : DAML+OIL + theory of classes
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/webont/dplus.html
- definitional information can show up not at top level
- expressive power is powerful DL
- model theory is RDF model plus additional conditions
- classes / restrictions are inferrable
Old OWL proposal
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Jan/att-0061/01-swol.text
http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/webont/swol-rdf.text
- syntax is XML
- definitional information can show up not at top level
- expressive power is powerful DL
- model theory is close to RDF model theory
- classes / restrictions are inferrable
Current OWL proposal
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/OWL-first-proposal/
- syntax is abstract, i.e., other
- all definitional information has to be at top level
- expressive power is powerful DL
- model theory is not the same as RDF model theory
- classes / restrictions are inferrable
Indicative Inferences, Queries, and Expressiveness
Inference 1-intersection/
Premises: John is an instance of Student
John is an instance of Employee
Conclusion: John is an instance of the intersection of Student and Employee
Inference 2-restrictions/
Premises: John is an instance of Student with no children
Conclusion: John is an instance of the restriction that requires no children
Query 3-subclasses/
Given: John is an instance of Student with child Joe
Query: return the subclasses of Student
Answer Set 1: Student, { John }, Student and Employee,
Student and atleast 79 children, ...
Answer Set 2: Student
Inference 4-trivial/
Given: John is an instance of Student
Conclusion: John is not an instance of Student
Syntax 5-embedded def/
To be said: all John's children are instances of TransitiveProperty,
John has a child that is either Joe or Jim
Meaning: Either Joe or Jim is a transitive property
SYSTEMS
DAML+OIL D+ Old OWL Current OWL
1-intersection no YES YES YES
2-restriction no YES YES YES
3-subclasses 2 1 1 invalid query
4-trivial no YES no no
5-embedded def not possible ? possible not possible
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2002 15:15:39 UTC