Re: Annotations and entailments

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 06:57:21 -0500 (EST)
• To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
• Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20030119.065721.46609586.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Annotations and entailments
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:36:33 +0100

> (During my on-going work on checking the mapping rules I came across this bug)
> 
> Semantic layering problem, potential showstopper.
> 
> FileA:
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="example">
>    <rdfs:comment>An explanation</rdfs:comment>
> </owl:Class>
> 
> 
> FileB:
> <owl:Class rdf:ID="example">
>    <rdfs:comment>A different explanation</rdfs:comment>
> </owl:Class>
> 
> 
> Currently
> 
> FileA DL-entails FileB
> 
> and
> 
> FileB DL-entails FileA
> 
> While being IMO simply incorrect; this also breaks semantic layering since in 
> OWL Full (like in RDF) neither entailment holds.
> 
> Jeremy

Hmm.  Why do you say that this is incorrect?   Annotations were supposed to
be non-logical.  I would instead say that RDF is incorrect.  (This is a
bit, but only a bit, tongue-in-cheek.)

I do agree that this might be considered to break semantic layering in some
sense.

peter

Received on Sunday, 19 January 2003 06:57:38 UTC