- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 20:11:59 +0100
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
[...] > > > > but then that would mean that to have a non empty individual > > > > all appropriate annotations have to in the KB, right? > > > > > > It means that to satisfy > > > > > > Individual(annotation(x y) annotation(x z) type(Person)) > > > > > > there has to be annotation triples of the form <a,I(x),I(y)><a,I(x),I(y)> > > > and <a,I(x),I(z)> for some a. > > > > Maybe I'm confused... > > Suppose the naming authority of na: creates an ontology in > > which there is a individual na:x that has 2 annotation triples. > > Well, I'm not really interesting in anything that starts with a presumption > of a ``nameing authority'', as this has no place in either the RDF or OWL > model theory. > > > Suppose we are now given a graph with the triple na:x :y :z. > > but not the annotation triples. > > Would that graph entail na:x :y :z ? > > Further, I don't see nearly enough information here to determine what it > going on. If you want to pose entailment questions, you are going to have > to put them in the form of one RDF graph entailing another or an OWL > abstract ontology or set of directives entailing another. does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph :x rdf:type owl:Thing. :a rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :b rdf:type owl:Thing. :c rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :d rdf:type owl:Thing. :x :a :b. # annotation triple :x :c :d. # annotation triple with the following OWL Lite graph :x rdf:type owl:Thing. :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :z rdf:type owl:Thing. :x :y :z. OWL Lite/DL entail :x rdf:type owl:Thing. :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :z rdf:type owl:Thing. :x :y :z. > > > > > > On the other hand, the so called annotation "triples" > > > > > > (NOT to confuse with RDF triples) are so > > > > > > weak that no entailement other than belonging to A > > > > > > can be done with them (seems to me). > > > > > > > > > > Well, this was the entire idea. > > > > > > > > Assuming that is the idea, then when such > > > > triples are exchanged in RDF/XML how can > > > > we ever know that they are special? > > > > > > You wouldn't have to. > > > > I don't understand that. > > Suppose we have an annotation triple :x :y :z > > and we know that :y is a subproperty of :v > > would that entail :x :v :z ? > > Again, what is the desired entailment? I don't think that this is even > allowable in the abstract syntax. does the merge of the following OWL Lite graph :x rdf:type owl:Thing. :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :z rdf:type owl:Thing. :x :y :z. # annotation triple with the following OWL Lite graph :y rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :y rdfs:subPropertyOf :v. OWL Lite entail :x rdf:type owl:Thing. :v rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty. :z rdf:type owl:Thing. :x :v :z. [...] -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2003 14:13:21 UTC