W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: ISSUE 5.3 Semantic Layering

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 10:56:22 +0200
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org, www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF65F45D15.796C8C76-ONC1256D53.002EDECF-C1256D53.00311CC6@agfa.be>

>Jeremy wrote:
>> As a straw man, how effective would the following change to S&AS be:
>> rewrite 5.3 so that:
>> OWL Full neither affirms or denies that owl:Thing = rdfs:Resource,
>> owl:ObjectProperty = rdf:Property owl:Class = rdfs:Class (where = is
>> equality of class extension).
>> Specifically replace:
>> [[
>> OWL Full augments the common conditions with conditions that force the
>> of the OWL universe to be the same as their analogues in RDF. These new
>> conditions strongly interact with the common conditions. For example,
>> because in OWL Full IOT is the entire RDF domain of discourse, the
>> comprehension condition for lists generates lists of any kind, including
>> lists of lists.
>> Definition: A OWL Full interpretation of a vocabulary V is an OWL
>> interpretation as above that satisfies the following conditions.
>> IOT = RI
>> IOOP = PI
>> IOC = CI
>> ]]
>> by
>> [[
>> Definition: A OWL Full interpretation of a vocabulary V is an OWL
>> interpretation as above
>> ]]
>> This seems to fix the specific counter-examples.

Jeremy, how does this fix
I can see the fix of the other ones

>> Moreover it makes OWL Full and OWL DL (as in 5.4) closer; and the
>> correspondence theorem is already stated as an IFF between section 5.4
>> theory and section 3 model theory; which makes an IFF between the
>> 5.3 and section 3 seem more plausible.
>> Would that work?

Peter wrote:
>Sure, it would work.

Fine; it is indeed good to keep
K OWL Full entails C if and only if K OWL DL entails C
certainly for OWL Full reasoners thinking DL.

>> How much baby goes out with the bath water?
>However, you would then need to assert, for example, that rdfs:Class was
>owl:Class before you would get many OWL inferences from it.  In essence,
>you would have to do all the same typing you need to do in OWL DL.

At least I haven't found such OWL inferences in the
test cases that euler runs (I mean, when we drop
owl:Class owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Class.
owl:Thing owl:equivalentClass rdfs:Resource.
we still run all the testcases that we ran before).
Peter, can you give such a test case?

Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Saturday, 28 June 2003 04:56:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:46 UTC