ISSUE-68

nonmonotonic mapping

RESOLVED: mapping rules are non-monotonic

State:

CLOSED

Product:

Raised by:

Jeremy Carroll

Opened on:

2007-11-20

Description:

The mapping rules have nonmonotonic behaviour.

Non-monotonocity generally has poor semantic behaviour, and this is likely to make the task of constructing an OWL Full semantics significantly harder.

Moveover, the sort of non-monotonicity described e.g.

DOMAIN[op] expands to rdfs:domain if OnlyOP(op) = true, and to owl11:objectPropertyDomain otherwise;

is likely to weaken the semantics as the information is increased, which is the incorrect direction.

Related Actions Items:

• ACTION-49 on Peter Patel-Schneider to Inform the WG on absurdity of QCR / OWL Full - due 2007-12-14, closed

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-103 (metamapping): Meta Issue to track other issues related to mapping (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2008-03-17)
2. RE: nonmon mapping and punning (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-03-07)
3. Re: nonmon mapping and punning (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2008-03-06)
4. Re: nonmon mapping and punning (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-03-06)
5. RE: nonmon mapping and punning (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-03-04)
6. Re: timed IRC log (from sandro@w3.org on 2008-02-28)
7. Agenda for teleconference Wednesday February 27th, 2008 (from ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk on 2008-02-26)
8. RE: ISSUE-68 (was Re: nonmon mapping and punning) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-26)
9. RE: ISSUE-68 (was Re: nonmon mapping and punning) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-26)
10. Re: ISSUE-68 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-02-20)
11. ISSUE-68 (was Re: nonmon mapping and punning) (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-02-20)
12. Re: Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-02-06)
13. RE: Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-06)
14. Possible backwards compatibility issue with the RDF-to-FS mapping (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-06)
15. RE: Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-06)
16. Re: Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68) (from bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk on 2008-02-05)
17. Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68) (from schneid@fzi.de on 2008-02-05)
18. Re: nonmon mapping and punning (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2008-01-23)
19. nonmon mapping and punning (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-23)
20. Re: Punning discussion (from jjc@hpl.hp.com on 2008-01-23)
21. Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2007-12-17)
22. Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68] (from phayes@ihmc.us on 2007-12-16)
23. Re: [OWLWG-COMMENT] Example why current RDF mapping for QCRs might hurt OWL-1.1-Full [Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68] (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2007-12-16)
24. Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68 (from hendler@cs.rpi.edu on 2007-12-13)
25. Re: PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68 (from alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 2007-12-13)
26. PROPOSAL to close ISSUE-68 (from pfps@research.bell-labs.com on 2007-12-13)
27. ISSUE-68 (nonmonotonic mapping): REPORTED: mapping rules are non-monotonic (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2007-11-20)

Related notes:

Display change log.