search

sesuncedu / owl1-1

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/owl1-1
0 stars 0 forks source link

Resolve whether to include declarations #44

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Pro: 
  Allows for detecting some kinds of errors
  Allows expression of intention in otherwise ambiguous cases
Con:
  Some duplication of information
  Uncertain impact
  Not a lot of experience with it

(there may be others)

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg80
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JulSep/thread.html#msg27

Original issue reported on code.google.com by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 9 Aug 2007 at 6:27

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
It should be noted that declarations *exist*, in a sense, in OWL DL. Use typing 
and declarations are handled by 
a mix of type triples and inference from syntactic position. Type triples are 
overloaded to be a kind of 
declaration as well as a typing mechanism.

The second pro conflates issues concerning intention and issues concerning 
ambiguity. Ambiguity is generally 
handled, in OWL 1.1, by manifest typing, e.g., "ObjectPropertyDomain" (vs. 
plain rdfs:domain in OWL). Now, 
arguably, this signals your intention that the property in question is an 
object property (and the object of the 
assertion is a class). But there are cases where nothing is ambiguous, but the 
author didn't intend for a 
property to be punned as a class (current declarations don't enforce this bit). 
Thus, some form of declaration 
could express this bit of authorial intent.

Original comment by bparsia on 13 Aug 2007 at 9:29

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
See also:

   http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=37

But this deals more with the syntax, afaict.

Original comment by bparsia on 13 Aug 2007 at 9:30

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by alanruttenberg@gmail.com on 25 Oct 2007 at 4:36