Holger, I realize that most reasoners will deal with (or ignore) the OWL-Full sections of the data, so maybe OWL-Full itself is not a problem. But we have made it a priority to stay in OWL-DL for a few reasons:
- With OWL-DL ontology/data, as our ontology changes, and affects the pre-existing data, OWL-Full data usually indicates some inconsistences--sometimes I have outdated references to classes/properties that no longer exist, for example. - I'm not very comfortable with a reasoner ignoring parts of our data, if it can be avoided--it seems the "incomplete" results could be misleading, especially to the untrained eye - When TBC indicates OWL-Full, it puts the offending data into the Error Log, implying that OWL-Full is an error. :) But the second part of the question was, when rdfs:label is an AnnotationProperty with domain/range, why is this *not* tagged as OWL-Full, when it (I think) violates the spec? (I don't *want* it to be tagged, I just want to understand why it is not). Are these hard-coded in the reasoners, since if I create my own annotation property with a range, I move into OWL-Full? Jim Holger Knublauch <[email protected]> Sent by: [email protected] 01/26/2009 12:55 PM Please respond to [email protected] To [email protected] cc Subject [tbc-users] Re: Annotation Properties Hi James, the OWL namespace itself adds this triple to declare rdfs:label (and some others) annotation properties. But may I ask: why are you concerned that leaving OWL DL is a bad thing? Thanks Holger On Jan 26, 2009, at 9:49 AM, James A Miller wrote: I don't know if this is a TBC question or not, but I will ask it here first... In the OWL spec, http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-ref-20040210/#AnnotationProperty-def, it states: Annotation properties must not be used in property axioms. Thus, in OWL DL one cannot define subproperties or domain/range constraints for annotation properties. And the definition of rdfs:label, according to http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label is: <rdf:Property rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label";> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"/> <rdfs:label>label</rdfs:label> <rdfs:comment>A human-readable name for the subject.</rdfs:comment> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Resource "/> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#Literal "/> </rdf:Property> Of course, it does not have an OWL annotation property type in an RDFS definition. But in TBC, I see that rdfs:label is an owl:AnnotationProperty, which is not in the rdfs definition. I'm not sure where that came from (TBC?), but I'm OK with that (I think), except it still has the domain and range definition, which seems to be in conflict with OWL-DL. I am not getting OWL Species of OWL-Full because of this, but I don't understand why not. Is this a hard-coded special case? Or am I misunderstanding something? Jim --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TopBraid Composer Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
