- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 12:28:44 +0200
- To: "Jeremy Carroll <jjc" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org
[...] > but ... > > while > > > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> <bar> ) ) > > AnnotationProperty( <a> ) > > Class( <bar> ) > > > does not now > > entail > > > > AnnotationProperty( <a> ) > > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> individual() ) ) > > we have that > > T( > > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> <bar> ) ) > > AnnotationProperty( <a> ) > > Class( <bar> ) > ) > OWL Full entails > T( > > AnnotationProperty( <a> ) > > Class( <foo> annotation( <a> individual() ) ) > ) > > because the individual() item is transformed into a bnode (with type > owl:Thing?) and the type triple is trivially true, so that the OWL Full > contentful part is: > > <foo> <a> <bar> . > entails > <foo> <a> _:b . > > which is true in RDF. > > This seems to be another instance of the "layering bug?" to which you say: > > > if an entailment holds in OWL DL then it holds in OWL Full, > > not vice versa. > > IMO it is worth highlighting this to the WG, and ensuring that the other > documents capture this. > > for example, TEST needs to change to make it clear that an OWL Full > consistency checker and an OWL DL consistency checker may get different > results on a DL document. > > That's not good. Right, and this one can't be resolved by being agnostic about the extensions of owl:Thing and owl:Class, at least not that I can see. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 20 June 2003 06:29:00 UTC