- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 17:22:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: SEM: Layering bug Date: 01 Jan 2003 14:09:40 -0600 > On Mon, 2002-12-30 at 12:00, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > >> > > >> OWL Full: > > >> > > >> Empty graph > > >> > > >> owl-full entails > > >> > > >> rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing > > > > DanC: > > > How do you get that? I thought owl:Thing was > > > disjoint from rdfs:Literal. > > > > In OWL DL but not OWL Full. > > That's not my understanding. > > > At > > http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/rdfs.html#5.4 > > > > we read IOT=R1 > > in other words > > > > owl:Thing owl:sameClassAs rdfs:Resource . > > That's broken. > > owl:Thing is disjoint from rdfs:Literal and rdf:Property, > in my understanding. > > Peter/Pat, please fix/confirm/explain-why-not. Looking at OWL as an extension to RDF we currently have the following situation. There are two vocabulary entailment relationships defined in OWL - OWL/DL entailment and OWL/Full entailment. Both of these definitions are relationships between arbitrary RDF Graphs. Empty graph OWL/Full entails rdfs:Literal rdfs:subClassOf owl:Thing . owl:Thing owl:sameClassAs rdfs:Resource. Empty graph OWL/DL entails rdfs:Literal owl:disjointWith owl:Thing . There are two subsets of RDF Graphs that are of interest for OWL - OWL/DL ontologies in graph form (OWL/DL graphs) and OWL/Lite graphs. OWL/DL graphs are defined as RDF graphs that can result from the translation of OWL abstract ontologies. OWL/Lite graphs are not defined in the semantics document (because they are uninteresting from its perspective). The obvious definition of OWL/Lite graphs is graphs that can result from the translation of OWL/Lite abstract ontologies. All OWL/Lite graphs are OWL/DL graphs. For RDF graphs G1 and G2, where G1, G2, and G1uG2 are all OWL/DL graphs, G1 OWL/Full entails G2 if G1 OWL/DL entails G2. In the above example, rdfs:Literal owl:disjointWith owl:Thing . is not an OWL/DL graph, so the above theorem does not apply. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 1 January 2003 17:23:06 UTC