- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 09:38:56 -0500 (EST)
- To: schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@swi.psy.uva.nl> Subject: Re: comments on ASS Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 12:32:06 +0100 [...] > > OWL Lite has had defined classes from the beginning. If the Guide > > indicates otherwise, it needs to be fixed. > > So, this is a legal OWL Lite axiom according to the AS&S. If, so we have > to correct this in the Guide. > > <owl:Class rdf:ID="TexasThings"> > <owl:sameClassAs> > <owl:Restriction> > <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#locatedIn" /> > <owl:allValuesFrom rdf:resource="#TexasRegion" /> > </owl:Restriction> > </owl:sameClassAs> > </owl:Class> > > Note that this only holds for restrictions. Set operators or enumeration > in this type of axiom would be non-lite. Yes, the above is legal OWL Lite. > >>The second comment came up when I was revising the Reference document > >>section on classes. In the Guide we see RDF/XML class axioms such as: > >> > >><owl:Class rdf:ID="WhiteWine"> > >> <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection"> > >> <owl:Class rdf:about="#Wine" /> > >> <owl:Restriction> > >> <owl:onProperty rdf:resource="#hasColor" /> > >> <owl:hasValue rdf:resource="#White" /> > >> </owl:Restriction> > >> </owl:intersectionOf> > >></owl:Class> > >> > >>As I understand it the abstract syntax only allows axioms > >>of the form: > >> <description> <relation> <description> > >>where <description> should be a class name, a restriction or any of the > >>set-operation constructs, and <relation> should be subClassOf, > >>sameClassAs, or dinjointWith. > > > > > > The Abstract Syntax only allows class axioms of the form > > > > Class name modality descriptions > > > > which have different translations depending on the modality and the number > > of descriptions. Some of these produce owl:sameClassAs; some don't. > > Yes, but the three Class(..) mapping rules alwats produce either a > subClassOf, a sameClassAs or a disjointWith triple. The RDF/XML example > I gave does not. So, the problem I have remains. In the current mapping rules (as of some time before 12 January) it is possible to produce ex:Classa owl:sameClassAs _:x . or ex:Classa rdfs:subClassOf _:x . or ex:Classa owl:intersectionOf _:y . where _:x can be any description and _:y can be any description list. > >>A final comment about the presentation: the ASS document often uses the > >>term OWL/DL, where it actually means OWL/DL and OWL/Full. > >>Please make this clear. The difference is only valid for the semantics > >>sections. BTW: the asbtract should also mention OWL/Full. > > > > > > I think that AS&S is fairly clear on this, and does not use DL where Full > > is meant. If you have any specific cases, I'll fix them. > > As I said: mention OWL Full in the abstract, and replace OWL/DL with > OWL/DL+Full in all the syntax sections. The abstract syntax is for OWL/Lite and OWL/Full only, so there should be no mention of OWL/Full until Section 5, which, I believe is the case. I will add OWL/Full to the abstract. peter
Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 09:39:11 UTC