Warning:
This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.
LC2 Responses/SP1
To: simon.paradies.ext@siemens.com
CC: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Subject: [LC response] To Simon Paradies
Dear Simon,
Thank you for your comment
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009May/0011.html>
on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
We agree that it would be very useful to have a compact way of stating
closure axioms. There have been past proposals to move OWL in this
direction, but they have not been made part of OWL to this date, partly
because of implementation concerns.
Nonetheless interest in these kinds of features remains high. Your
comment will help serve as a reminder of this interest for any future
W3C work on OWL.
In the meantime, you might consider producing a proposal in
collaboration with other interested parties. The OWLED workshops are a
good place to float these sorts of ideas and to see what interest they
garner. You could also make a W3C member submission in this area.
Please acknowledge receipt of this email to <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
Regards,
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
CUT AND PASTE THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE (I.E. FROM "Dear" TO "Group") INTO THE BODY OF AN EMAIL MESSAGE. SET THE To:, CC:, AND Subject: LINES ACCORDINGLY.
PLEASE TRY TO REPLY IN A WAY THAT WILL ALLOW THREADING TO WORK APPROPRIATELY, I.E., SO THAT YOUR REPLY CONTINUES THE THREAD STARTED BY THE ORIGINAL COMMENT EMAIL
| From: Paradies, Simon <simon.paradies.ext@siemens.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 18:40:42 +0200 Message-ID: <CDE7561BAD10B9459D2151FFD3DB2AE756BCF0@MCHP7I7A.ww902.siemens.net> To: <public-owl-comments@w3.org> Dear Working Group members, The use of OWL to describe common object relational models and its instantiations is an intuitive use case. However, due to the OWA semantics the use of cardinality constraints in OWL for model checking and classification purposes is not trivially possible. Not considering further hassles like non-UNA, a loophole is to add closure axioms to individuals in the form of 'property allValuesOf({object1, object2, ...})' for each property. Thus, it is necessary to assert the non-existence of further values for each property. This is a tedious task and blows up the footprint of the KB significantly. It would be desirable to be able to asserted this using some form of syntactic sugar. Albeit altering syntax is not being considered in the current state of the specification process (cf. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Apr/0082.htm l), I would like to post this issue for discussion and future consideration. With best regards, Simon Paradies External service provider at Siemens AG Corporate Technology CT IC 1 Otto-Hahn-Ring 6 81739 Munich, Germany Tel.: +49 (89) 636-41451 Fax: +49 (89) 636-49438 mailto:simon.paradies.ext@siemens.com <mailto:simon.paradies.ext@siemens.com> |