Leonard; This is not advisable, as it breaks the RDFS standard. See http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema, where the subPropertyOf relationships are clearly defined. I understand that this may be seen as out of your control, but if the objective is to create models using standards, then the solution isn't to break current standards (e.g. RDFS) to address misconceptions about dated standards (e.g. OWL 1 DL).
One misconception being that the use of OWL 1 DL as a syntax checker is somehow a well-founded notion. DL reasoners have always been able to reason with subproperties of annotation properties, using classes as instances, etc. Therefore checking for DL compliance has little-to- no relationship with computations that DL reasoners have been capable of for years. And therefore using OWL 1 DL syntax checkers is both misleading and unnecessary. One could write rules to restrict the use of RDF/RDFS/OWL constructs that some DL reasoners cannot handle, which is a valid check. But this would be a different kind of syntax checker than the current DL syntax checkers, which only check models against the outdated OWL 1 DL profile. Current DL reasoners can reason safely over a larger subset of OWL Full, and the OWL 2 standard is updated to reflect this. -- Scott On Feb 1, 4:00 pm, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Scott, > I am not sure how much influence I can have on what the people I am working > with want to do. So, I will attempt to delete that axiom. > Best, > LFJ > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Scott Henninger > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > OK, I believe the confusion comes from OWL 1 vs. OWL 2. My reference > > point has been the more recent OWL 2 standard. See the section on > > annotations athttp://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/#Annotation_Properties. > > > Also see > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-owl2-new-features-20090421/#F13:_Annotat..., > > which states: > > > OWL 1 allows associating extralogical information, such as a label > > or a comment, to each ontology > > entity, but did not allow annotation of axioms, e.g., with > > information about who asserted an > > axiom or when. > > > OWL 2 provides the construct AnnotationAssertion for annotations > > on ontologies, entities (such as > > a class or individual, including anonymous individuals), and the > > construct Annotation for axioms. > > Even annotations of annotations are possible. In the OWL 2 Direct > > Semantics, annotations carry no > > logical import, allowing the direct use of DL reasoners. > > > This along with the previous posts should make things clearer. The > > RDFS standard does indeed state that rdfs:isDefinedBy is a subproperty > > of rdfs:seeAlso. This was apparently a problem with OWL DL 1, but is > > no longer an issue with OWL 2 DL. Therefore Composer's > > "interpretation" is correct. > > > Some background (thanks to Jeremy) is that DL syntactic constraints > > were a way for the 2004 Working Groups to reach a compromise. But > > this turned out to be unsatisfactory from both technical and business > > perspectives. OWL 2 resolved several of these issues and has been a > > finalized recommendation since October 2009. > > > So the overall recommendation for your colleagues is to use OWL 2 > > where these issues are no longer a concern. > > > -- Scott > > > On Feb 1, 2:02 pm, Leonard Jacuzzo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Scott, > > > As you must have seen from the message to which you were responding, > > there > > > is a link to the W3C's OWL Reference. Here it ishttp:// > >www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/There you will find section 7.1 on > > > annotations. In fact, I pasted that section into the email to which you > > > responded, but since you missed it here it is again. > > > > 7.1 Annotations > > > OWL Full does not put any constraints on annotations in an ontology. OWL > > DL > > > allows annotations on classes, properties, individuals and ontology > > headers, > > > but only under the following conditions: > > > The sets of object properties, datatype properties, annotation properties > > > and ontology properties must be mutually disjoint. Thus, in OWL DL > > > dc:creator cannot be at the same time a datatype property and an > > annotation > > > property. > > > Annotation properties must have an explicit typing triple of the form: > > > AnnotationPropertyID rdf:type owl:AnnotationProperty . > > > Annotation properties must not be used in property axioms. Thus, in OWL > > DL > > > one cannot define subproperties or domain/range constraints for > > annotation > > > properties. > > > The object of an annotation property must be either a data literal, a URI > > > reference, or an individual. > > > Five annotation properties are predefined by OWL, namely: > > > owl:versionInfo > > > rdfs:label > > > rdfs:comment > > > rdfs:seeAlso > > > rdfs:isDefinedBy > > > > Am I confused about something? Please let me know because it is important > > > that I get this correct. > > > > Best wishes, > > > Leonard > > > > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Scott Henninger > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > On 2/1/11 1:12 PM, Leonard Jacuzzo wrote: > > > > >> Unless, my interpretation of 7.1 is amiss. Is it?) > > > > > Section of 7.1 where? > > > > > -- Scott > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid > > > > Composer, > > > > TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > [email protected] > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<topbraid-users%[email protected]> > > <topbraid-users%[email protected]<topbraid-users%[email protected]> > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid > > Composer, > > TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<topbraid-users%[email protected]> > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-users?hl=en -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group "TopBraid Suite Users", the topics of which include TopBraid Composer, TopBraid Live, TopBraid Ensemble, SPARQLMotion and SPIN. 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-users?hl=en
