- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 15:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schneid@fzi.de
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, jjc@hpl.hp.com
Looks good. General points: 1/ IF AND ONLY IF C THEN D is not good grammar and is very hard to understand. It should either be C IF AND ONLY IF D or IF C THEN D depending on what is meant. A few specific points: 1/ Axiomatic triple: owl11:disjointObjectProperties rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty should be owl11:disjointObjectProperties rdf:type rdf:Property Similarly for owl11:disjointDataProperties and owl:onProperty and rdfs:subPropertyOf and owl11:propertyChain and owl:unionOf, at least. The domain and range of rdfs:subPropertyOf are not owl:ObjectProperty. 2/ I do not believe that a comprehension principle is needed for owl11:disjointUnionOf (so long as there is a comprehension principle for lists of descriptions) and the syntax requires that the disjointUnion be a named class. 3/ The main semantic conditions for negative property assertions have an unbound variable. This is probably a bad thing in an IFF condition. I suggest instead using an IF condition and a comprehension principle (like for the n-ary constructs). 4/ I believe that owl:subPropertyOf should be rdfs:subPropertyOf 5/ The RDFS-compatible semantics for OWL 1.0 would be incorrect if owl:FunctionalProperty rdfs:subClassOf owl:ObjectProperty was an axiomatic triple. Similarly for the domain and range of owl:sameAs and owl:differentFrom. Similarly for the domain and range of owl:equivalentProperty and the range of owl:onProperty and owl:hasValue. peter PS: Good catch on owl:AllDifferent
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 19:08:31 UTC