Copyright © 2008 W3C^{®} (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark and document use rules apply.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This document is being published as one of a set of 3 documents:
These First Public Working Drafts are based closely on the OWL 1.1 Submission, a set of documents developed outside of W3C as proposed refinements and extensions to the W3C's 2004 OWL Recommendation.
A number of features of OWL 1.1 are still under consideration by the OWL Working Group. Future versions of these documents may modify or drop descriptions of some features, or add specification of new features. Where specific issues have been identified on which the Working Group intends to make a decision, relevant parts of this document have been labeled with an "Editor's Note". Although the WG aims to maximise backwards compatibility with OWL 1.0, such compatibility cannot be guaranteed in all cases. The Working Group is publishing these drafts for public comment in order to inform the ongoing decision making process.
The OWL Working Group seeks public feedback on these Working Drafts. Please send your comments to public-owl-comments@w3.org (public archive). If possible, please offer specific changes to the text that would address your concern.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.
Contents |
Editor's Note: See Issue-72 (Annotation Semantics).
Editor's Note: See Issue 63 (OWL Full Semantics).
Editor's Note: See Issue 69 (punning).
This document defines the formal semantics of OWL 1.1. The semantics given here follows the principles for defining the semantics of description logics [Description Logics] and is compatible with the description logic SROIQ presented in [SROIQ]. Unfortunately, the definition of SROIQ given in [SROIQ] does not provide for datatypes and metamodeling. Therefore, the semantics of OWL 1.1 is defined in a direct model-theoretic way, by interpreting the constructs of the functional-style syntax from [OWL 1.1 Specification]. For the constructs available in SROIQ, the semantics of SROIQ trivially corresponds to the one defined in this document.
OWL 1.1 does not have an RDF-compatible semantics. Ontologies expressed in OWL RDF are given semantics by converting then into the functional-style syntax and interpreting the result as specified in this document.
OWL 1.1 allows for annotations of ontologies and ontology entities (classes, properties, and individuals) and ontology axioms. Annotations, however, have no semantic meaning in OWL 1.1 and are ignored in this document. Definitions in OWL 1.1 similarly have no semantics. Constructs only used in annotations and definitions, like ObjectProperty, therefore do not show up in this document.
Since OWL 1.1 is an extension of OWL DL, this document also provides a formal semantics for OWL Lite and OWL DL and it is equivalent to the definition given in [OWL Abstract Syntax and Semantics].
Editor's Note: See Issue-73 (infinite universe ).
A vocabulary (or signature) V = ( N_{C} , N_{Po} , N_{Pd} , N_{I} , N_{D} , N_{V} ) is a 6-tuple where
Since OWL 1.1 allows punning [Metamodeling] in the signature, we do not require the sets N_{C} , N_{Po} , N_{Pd} , N_{I} , N_{D} , and N_{V} to be pair-wise disjoint. Thus, the same name can be used in an ontology to denote a class, a datatype, a property (object or data), an individual, and a constant. The set N_{D} is defined as it is because a datatype is defined by its name and the arity, and such a definition allows one to reuse the same name with different arities.
The semantics of OWL 1.1 is defined with respect to a concrete domain, which is a tuple D = ( Δ_{D} , .^{D} ) where
The set of datatypes N_{D} in each OWL 1.1 vocabulary must include a unary datatype rdfs:Literal interpreted as Δ_{D}; furthermore, it must also include the following unary datatypes: xsd:string, xsd:boolean, xsd:decimal, xsd:float, xsd:double, xsd:dateTime, xsd:time, xsd:date, xsd:gYearMonth, xsd:gYear, xsd:gMonthDay, xsd:gDay, xsd:gMonth, xsd:hexBinary, xsd:base64Binary, xsd:anyURI, xsd:normalizedString, xsd:token, xsd:language, xsd:NMTOKEN, xsd:Name, xsd:NCName, xsd:integer, xsd:nonPositiveInteger, xsd:negativeInteger, xsd:long, xsd:int, xsd:short, xsd:byte, xsd:nonNegativeInteger, xsd:unsignedLong, xsd:unsignedInt, xsd:unsignedShort, xsd:unsignedByte, and xsd:positiveInteger. These datatypes, as well as the well-formed constants from N_{V}, are interpreted as specified in [XML Schema Datatypes]. (Note that the value spaces of primitive XML Schema Datatypes are disjoint, so "2"^^xsd:decimal^{D} is different from "2"^^xsd:float"^{D}.)
The set Δ_{D} is a fixed set that must be large enough; that is, it must contain the extension of each datatype from N_{D} and, apart from that, an infinite number of other objects. Such a definition is ambiguous, as it does not uniquely single out a particular set Δ_{D}; however, the choice of the actual set is not actually relevant for the definition of the semantics, as long as it contains the interpretations of all datatypes that one can "reasonably think of." This allows the implementations to support datatypes other than the ones mentioned in the previous paragraphs without affecting the semantics.
Given a vocabulary V and a concrete domain D, an interpretation I = ( Δ_{I} , .^{Ic} , .^{Ipo} , .^{Ipd} , .^{Ii} ) is a 5-tuple where
We extend the object interpretation function .^{Ipo} to object property expressions as shown in Table 1.
Object Property Expression | Interpretation |
---|---|
InverseObjectProperty(R) | { ( x , y ) | ( y , x ) ∈ R^{Ipo} } |
We extend the interpretation function .^{D} to data ranges as shown in Table 2.
Data Range | Interpretation |
---|---|
DataOneOf(v_{1} ... v_{n}) | { v_{1}^{D} , ... , v_{n}^{D} } |
DataComplementOf(DR) | ( Δ_{D} )^{n} \ DR^{D} where n is the arity of DR |
DatatypeRestriction(DR f v) |
the n-ary relation over Δ_{D} obtained by applying the facet f with value v |
We extend the class interpretation function .^{Ic} to descriptions as shown in Table 3. With #S we denote the number of elements in a set S.
Description | Interpretation |
---|---|
owl:Thing | Δ_{I} |
owl:Nothing | empty set |
ObjectComplementOf(C) | Δ_{I} \ C^{Ic} |
ObjectIntersectionOf(C_{1} ... C_{n}) | C_{1}^{Ic} ∩ ... ∩ C_{n}^{Ic} |
ObjectUnionOf(C_{1} ... C_{n}) | C_{1}^{Ic} ∪ ... ∪ C_{n}^{Ic} |
ObjectOneOf(a_{1} ... a_{n}) | { a_{1}^{Ii} , ... , a_{n}^{Ii} } |
ObjectSomeValuesFrom(R C) | { x | ∃ y: ( x, y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and y ∈ C^{Ic} } |
ObjectAllValuesFrom(R C) | { x | ∀ y: ( x, y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} implies y ∈ C^{Ic} } |
ObjectHasValue(R a) | { x | ( x, a^{Ii} ) ∈ R^{Ipo} } |
ObjectExistsSelf(R) | { x | ( x, x ) ∈ R^{Ipo} } |
ObjectMinCardinality(n R C) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and y ∈ C^{Ic} } ≥ n } |
ObjectMaxCardinality(n R C) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and y ∈ C^{Ic} } ≤ n } |
ObjectExactCardinality(n R C) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and y ∈ C^{Ic} } = n } |
DataSomeValuesFrom(U_{1} ... U_{n} DR) | { x | ∃ y_{1}, ..., y_{n}: ( x, y_{k} ) ∈ U_{k}^{Ipd} for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n and ( y_{1}, ..., y_{n} ) ∈ DR^{D} } |
DataAllValuesFrom(U_{1} ... U_{n} DR) | { x | ∀ y_{1}, ..., y_{n}: ( x, y_{k} ) ∈ U_{k}^{Ipd} for each 1 ≤ k ≤ n implies ( y_{1}, ..., y_{n} ) ∈ DR^{D} } |
DataHasValue(U v) | { x | ( x, v^{D} ) ∈ U^{Ipd} } |
DataMinCardinality(n U DR) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ U^{Ipd} and y ∈ DR^{D} } ≥ n } |
DataMaxCardinality(n U DR) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ U^{Ipd} and y ∈ DR^{D} } ≤ n } |
DataExactCardinality(n U DR) | { x | #{ y | ( x, y ) ∈ U^{Ipd} and y ∈ DR^{D} } = n } |
Satisfaction of OWL 1.1 axioms in an interpretation I is defined as shown in Table 4. With o we denote the composition of binary relations.
Axiom | Condition |
---|---|
SubClassOf(C D) | C^{Ic} ⊆ D^{Ic} |
EquivalentClasses(C_{1} ... C_{n}) | C_{j}^{Ic} = C_{k}^{Ic} for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n |
DisjointClasses(C_{1} ... C_{n}) | C_{j}^{Ic} ∩ C_{k}^{Ic} is empty for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n and j ≠ k |
DisjointUnion(A C_{1} ... C_{n}) | A^{Ic} = C_{1}^{Ic} ∪ ... ∪ C_{n}^{Ic} and C_{j}^{Ic} ∩ C_{k}^{Ic} is empty for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n and j ≠ k |
SubObjectPropertyOf(R S) | R^{Ipo} ⊆ S^{Ipo} |
SubObjectPropertyOf(SubObjectPropertyChain(R_{1} ... R_{n}) S) | R_{1}^{Ipo} o ... o R_{n}^{Ipo} ⊆ S^{Ipo} |
EquivalentObjectProperties(R_{1} ... R_{n}) | R_{j}^{Ipo} = R_{k}^{Ipo} for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n |
DisjointObjectProperties(R_{1} ... R_{n}) | R_{j}^{Ipo} ∩ R_{k}^{Ipo} is empty for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n and j ≠ k |
ObjectPropertyDomain(R C) | { x | ∃ y: (x , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} } ⊆ C^{Ic} |
ObjectPropertyRange(R C) | { y | ∃ x: (x , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} } ⊆ C^{Ic} |
InverseObjectProperties(R S) | R^{Ipo} = { ( x , y ) | ( y , x ) ∈ S^{Ipo} } |
FunctionalObjectProperty(R) | ( x , y_{1} ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and ( x , y_{2} ) ∈ R^{Ipo} imply y_{1} = y_{2} |
InverseFunctionalObjectProperty(R) | ( x_{1} , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} and ( x_{2} , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} imply x_{1} = x_{2} |
ReflexiveObjectProperty(R) | x ∈ Δ_{I} implies ( x , x ) ∈ R^{Ipo} |
IrreflexiveObjectProperty(R) | x ∈ Δ_{I} implies ( x , x ) is not in R^{Ipo} |
SymmetricObjectProperty(R) | ( x , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} implies ( y , x ) ∈ R^{Ipo} |
AsymmetricObjectProperty(R) | ( x , y ) ∈ R^{Ipo} implies ( y , x ) is not in R^{Ipo} |
TransitiveObjectProperty(R) | R^{Ipo} o R^{Ipo} ⊆ R^{Ipo} |
SubDataPropertyOf(U V) | U^{Ipd} ⊆ V^{Ipd} |
EquivalentDataProperties(U_{1} ... U_{n}) | U_{j}^{Ipd} = U_{k}^{Ipd} for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n |
DisjointDataProperties(U_{1} ... U_{n}) | U_{j}^{Ipd} ∩ U_{k}^{Ipd} is empty for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n and j ≠ k |
DataPropertyDomain(U C) | { x | ∃ y: (x , y ) ∈ U^{Ipd} } ⊆ C^{Ic} |
DataPropertyRange(U DR) | { y | ∃ x: (x , y ) ∈ U^{Ipd} } ⊆ DR^{D} |
FunctionalDataProperty(U) | ( x , y_{1} ) ∈ U^{Ipd} and ( x , y_{2} ) ∈ U^{Ipd} imply y_{1} = y_{2} |
SameIndividual(a_{1} ... a_{n}) | a_{j}^{Ii} = a_{k}^{Ii} for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n |
DifferentIndividuals(a_{1} ... a_{n}) | a_{j}^{Ii} ≠ a_{k}^{Ii} for each 1 ≤ j , k ≤ n and j ≠ k |
ClassAssertion(a C) | a^{Ii} ∈ C^{Ic} |
ObjectPropertyAssertion(R a b) | ( a^{Ii} , b^{Ii} ) ∈ R^{Ipo} |
NegativeObjectPropertyAssertion(R a b) | ( a^{Ii} , b^{Ii} ) is not in R^{Ipo} |
DataPropertyAssertion(U a v) | ( a^{Ii} , v^{D} ) ∈ U^{Ipd} |
NegativeDataPropertyAssertion(U a v) | ( a^{Ii} , v^{D} ) is not in U^{Ipd} |
Let O be an OWL 1.1 ontology with vocabulary V. O is consistent if an interpretation I exists that satisfies all the axioms of the axiom closure of O (the axiom closure of O is defined in [OWL 1.1 Specification]); such I is then called a model of O. A description C is satisfiable w.r.t. O if there is a model I of O such that C^{Ic} is not empty. O entails an OWL 1.1 ontology O' with vocabulary V if every model of O is also a model of O'; furthermore, O and O' are equivalent if O entails O' and O' entails O.