Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[p4-feedback] RE : Use of inverseFunctional for data properties

Evain, Jean-Pierre evain at ebu.ch
Wed Sep 22 01:21:37 PDT 2010


Hi Timothy,

I appreciate the nature of the technical problem on punning and OWL versions.

On the other hand, I have a non-technical issue, which is that W3C considers FOAF as the coolest possible way of describing persons and organisations (when I personally question the rdf and value of the geek profile that it really is .-).

When you mention a problem with OWL API tools, you mean that most of them don't implement OWL FULL (yet, if ever?)

Regards,

jean-pierre

________________________________
De : p4-feedback-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [p4-feedback-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] de la part de Timothy Redmond [tredmond at stanford.edu]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 10:03
À : p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu
Objet : Re: [p4-feedback] Use of inverseFunctional for data properties


Then could the described behaviour be a parsing problem?

It is not clear that there is a good choice here.

The foaf ontology seems to have a clear pun of an object property with a data property:


  <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox_sha1sum"<http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/mbox_sha1sum> vs:term_status="testing" rdfs:label="sha1sum of a personal mailbox URI name" rdfs:comment="The sha1sum of the URI of an Internet mailbox associated with exactly one owner, the  first owner of the mailbox.">
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#InverseFunctionalProperty"<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#InverseFunctionalProperty>/>
        ... some discussion of inverse functional properties here ...
    <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty"<http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#DatatypeProperty>/>



Given this and the observation that


Object and Data properties can not be punned.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Typing_Constraints_of_OWL_2_DL


it would seem that the obvious conclusion is that, strictly speaking, foaf is an OWL Full ontology that may give trouble to OWL API based tools.

-Timothy


On 09/22/2010 12:33 AM, Thomas Schneider wrote:

On 22 Sep 2010, at 03:52, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Thomas Schneider <schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk><mailto:schneidt at cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:

On 21 Sep 2010, at 08:43, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:

Good morning.

While looking at the FOAF ontology on Protégé 4.0, different properties,
although declared as data properties, would be displayed as data and object
properties.

Would you confirm that this results from the fact that these properties
are also declared as inverseFunctional, which would seem to make them look
like object properties to Protégé?

I don't know the FOAF ontology, but I suspect that the described behaviour
is due to punning, which is allowed in OWL 2: two entities of different type
(e.g. an object property and a data property) can have the same name.

Object and Data properties can not be punned.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-owl2-syntax-20091027/#Typing_Constraints_of_OWL_2_DL

Hmmm, sorry for overlooking this ...

Then could the described behaviour be a parsing problem? It might be worth trying to open the same ontology with the recent Protégé version (4.1 beta), where conformance with the OWL specification has been improved.

But maybe someone from the Protégé team should comment on this.

Cheers

Thomas


It is
possible that, if the parser reads an InverseFunctional statement, that the
property is punned and treated as an object property for this particular
statement and as a data property otherwise.

However, I can't say for sure that this is the actual reason.

It also seems, still on Protégé 4.0 that it is not proposed to declare
data properties as being inverseFunctional. Any reason?

Neither in 4.0 nor in 4.1 can you declare data properties as inverse
functional. The reason is that the OWL specification doesn't allow this. If
it were allowed, reasoning would become an undecidable problem.

Interesting to note that reasoners accept all this.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean. If you invoked the reasoner within
Protégé, it worked on the representation of the ontology created by Protégé
(or the underlying OWL API). Since the properties in question had been
punned during parsing as described above, the reasoner got the
InverseFunctional statements for object properties. However, if you invoked
a reasoner directly, e.g., Pellet on the command line, then they might
simply have used punning too.

Cheers

Thomas


What do you think?

Regards,

Jean-pierre
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it
are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed.
If you have received this email in error,
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email
message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
|  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
|  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
|  University of Manchester                                            |
|  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
|  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+

Fremantle (vb.)
 To steal things not worth the bother of stealing. One steals cars,
 money and silver. Book matches, airline eyepatches and individual
 pots of Trust House Forte apricot jam are merely fremantled.

                 Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff




_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback


_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Dr Thomas Schneider                    schneider (at) cs.man.ac.uk  |
|  School of Computer Science       http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schneidt  |
|  Kilburn Building, Room 2.114                 phone +44 161 2756136  |
|  University of Manchester                                            |
|  Oxford Road                                             _///_       |
|  Manchester M13 9PL                                      (o~o)       |
+-----------------------------------------------------oOOO--(_)--OOOo--+

Fremantle (vb.)
  To steal things not worth the bother of stealing. One steals cars,
  money and silver. Book matches, airline eyepatches and individual
  pots of Trust House Forte apricot jam are merely fremantled.

                  Douglas Adams, John Lloyd: The Deeper Meaning of Liff





_______________________________________________
p4-feedback mailing list
p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu<mailto:p4-feedback at lists.stanford.edu>
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/p4-feedback





More information about the p4-feedback mailing list