- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:19:49 -0400 (EDT)
- To: connolly@w3.org
- Cc: jjc@hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: mapping rule for InverseFunctionalProperty etc Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 10:59:34 -0500 > On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 10:48, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > > From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com> > > Subject: mapping rule for InverseFunctionalProperty etc > > Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 15:59:12 +0300 > > > > > The mappjng rule for > > > ObjectProperty( ID InverseFunctional ) > > > > > > => > > > > > > ID rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty . > > > [opt if one of the last three triples is included] > > > ID rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty . > > > > > > Does not appear to achieve the apparent desired effect. > > > > > > Because while > > > > > > eg:foo rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty . > > > > > > is hence a legal OWL Lite ontology, the following is not > > > > > > _:a rdf:type owl:Thing . > > > _:a eg:foo _:b . > > > _:b rdf:type owl:Thing . > > > eg:foo rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty . > > > > Agreed. The translation rule for individualvaluedPropertyID should be > > changed to make its first triple be optional if there is a triple in the > > translation of the ontology that give the ID one of the three > > more-specific OWL property types. > > > > Again, this should be agreed on by the WG. > > > > I believe that OWLP already acts in this modified manner. > > Let's see if I understand this... the test-case-sketch above > shows a difference between how OWLP is implemented and how > are specs are written? Correct. OWLP is slightly too liberal in what it identifies as OWL DL. > If that's the case, then yes, please, add it to the test suite > and let's get a WG decision to make the change (the alternative-- > for the WG to adopt the test in such a way that confirms > the existing design and says OWLP and Jeremy are wrong--seems > silly.) Agreed. > Anybody care to guestimate what changes to the text of > the other docs are needed? I expect that zero bytes need to be changed. > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ peter
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 12:19:59 UTC