S&AS: rdfs compatible semantics - solipsistic!

• From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
• Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 14:14:40 +0100
• To: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEFECBAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Further reviewing my earlier notes:


Critical:

1: owl:Property is not in the vocabulary and should not appear in the
document.
Suggest that this can be substituted with IOP in most cases.

2: owl:InverseFunctionalProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty,
owl:SymmetricProperty should be specified as subsets of owl:ObjectProperty.

Otherwise we have:

 <x> rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .

OWL DL entails (section 5.3.1):

 <x> rdf:type owl:TransitiveProperty .

while this entailment violates name separation it seems unwise not to block
it.

Suggest changing condition:
 then c?CEXTI(SI(E)) iff c?IOOP?IODP and
to not include IODP (except for FunctionalProperty).




Question:

In OWL Full should there be some stronger conditions on IOP and IOOP e.g.

  IOOP = IOP

The current document does not support "natural" OWL Full entailments like:

<a> <p> <b> .

does not OWL Full entail:

<a> rdf:type _:x .
_:x rdf:type owl:Restriction .
_:x owl:onProperty <p> .
_:x owl:hasValue <b> .

because outside owl:ObjectProperty and owl:DatatypeProperty it is
solipsistic.

Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 08:14:36 UTC