From Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk Wed Mar 1 05:47:54 2006 From: Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk (Uli Sattler) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 10:47:54 +0000 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> <4403488B.8030109@cs.umd.edu> <7785df8913fa9d4d6b6d9c359caf48c4@cs.man.ac.uk> <6A3DECE7-6C0A-4649-BABE-35588EDB4C34@mumble.net> <29C0C99F-43A7-4DF4-9786-52EF777D0008@cs.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4DDE0678-B9A3-4BA5-A398-EA0C14004462@cs.man.ac.uk> On 1 Mar 2006, at 02:16, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Hi Uli (aka "others") > > Thanks, this is helpful. To make sure I understand, the answer is > that it's unknown whether adding inverseFunctional datatype > properties, even in there are no predicates other than = and if the > datatype has an infinite domain, is decidable. > Hi Alan, I would rather say: it is unknown whether adding inverseFunctional datatype properties, even if the datatype has an infinite domain, is decidable....I wouldn't "know" of the other case either, but I guess (!) that it should be easier -- however, one would need to sit down and check the details. > On Feb 28, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Ulrike Sattler wrote: >> ok, so imagine you have a datatype property "hasSocialSecurity", hss, >> with range MyInteger, and domain Citizen. >> >> Now, you can make Citizen a subclass of Human, and can enforce >> an infinite "chain" of humans using standard OWL constructs, ie, a >> human >> and all its ancestors---and you can make sure that this chain is >> infinite. > > How does make sure the chain is infinite? I started to write this up; > > human, subclass of restriction parent some human > > then got stuck trying to figure out how to force (parent of x) not > equal x. This is a classis example (that comes in different flavours): try instantiating (Woman and restriction father some Man) Woman, subclass of Human, disjoint with Man Man, subclass of Human Human, subclass of (restriction father some Man) Human, subclass of (restriction maxcardinality 1 InverseOf(father)) %% this doesn't make to much sense since it says that you can't have more than 1 child, but it works to enforce an infinite chain Cheers, Uli > >> Now it depends on the size of MyInteger whether the resulting >> ontology >> is consistent or not....if it's infinite, then it's consistent, >> other inconsistent. > > Nice. > >> This is the easy case -- imagine, if only adult Citizen need to >> have a >> social security number...or when they are employed/have a permanent >> job, etc. ...all sorts of things that mean that only some Citizens >> need to have a social security number...I can't think of a >> "practicable" way of >> reasoning in this case, and I wouldn't be surprised* if it turned >> out that, for >> certain (surprisingly simple) datatypes, such an extension is >> undecidable. > > Ok, I understand the problem when the range is finite, at least. > >> The "way out" using "we use a datatype with an infinite domain" >> doesn't >> help, either (or perhaps only with severest syntactic >> restrictions): you >> might use comparisons (such as "Humans of kind C have a social >> security >> number above/below x) to make it finite, and this might be quite >> tricky to spot. > > Not an issue in OWL 1.0, since no way to say above/below. But I can > see the problem in 1.1+ > >> If I remember your use case for this correctly, then you might >> want to >> consider using DL-safe rules for this: >> >> x = y :- hss(x,n), hss(y,n) >> >> This will make sure that all individuals in your ABox have >> different social security numbers.... > > Working on it. In Pellet, where I've been working, the rules don't > yet support SameIndividual as consequent. Just downloaded KAON2 and > will have a look at that. Other suggestions for rule engine are > welcome. > > -Alan > From Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk Wed Mar 1 12:33:13 2006 From: Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk (Uli Sattler) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:33:13 +0000 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> <4403488B.8030109@cs.umd.edu> <7785df8913fa9d4d6b6d9c359caf48c4@cs.man.ac.uk> <6A3DECE7-6C0A-4649-BABE-35588EDB4C34@mumble.net> <29C0C99F-43A7-4DF4-9786-52EF777D0008@cs.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2006, at 02:16, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Hi Uli (aka "others") > > Thanks, this is helpful. To make sure I understand, the answer is > that it's unknown whether adding inverseFunctional datatype > properties, even in there are no predicates other than = and if the > datatype has an infinite domain, is decidable. > Hi, it's me again: Ian finally convinced me that we CAN do better: we can claim that it shouldn't be too difficult to show that "adding inverseFunctional datatype properties to OWL-DL preserves its decidability, even with comparisons or other predicates. " It might be rather disastrous on the performance since, if you consider again the SSN example where SSNs are between 1 and 100,000,000...but it does not affect its decidability. So, I hope i haven't opened any can or tin or such like....cheers, Uli > On Feb 28, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Ulrike Sattler wrote: >> ok, so imagine you have a datatype property "hasSocialSecurity", hss, >> with range MyInteger, and domain Citizen. >> >> Now, you can make Citizen a subclass of Human, and can enforce >> an infinite "chain" of humans using standard OWL constructs, ie, a >> human >> and all its ancestors---and you can make sure that this chain is >> infinite. > > How does make sure the chain is infinite? I started to write this up; > > human, subclass of restriction parent some human > > then got stuck trying to figure out how to force (parent of x) not > equal x. > >> Now it depends on the size of MyInteger whether the resulting >> ontology >> is consistent or not....if it's infinite, then it's consistent, >> other inconsistent. > > Nice. > >> This is the easy case -- imagine, if only adult Citizen need to >> have a >> social security number...or when they are employed/have a permanent >> job, etc. ...all sorts of things that mean that only some Citizens >> need to have a social security number...I can't think of a >> "practicable" way of >> reasoning in this case, and I wouldn't be surprised* if it turned >> out that, for >> certain (surprisingly simple) datatypes, such an extension is >> undecidable. > > Ok, I understand the problem when the range is finite, at least. > >> The "way out" using "we use a datatype with an infinite domain" >> doesn't >> help, either (or perhaps only with severest syntactic >> restrictions): you >> might use comparisons (such as "Humans of kind C have a social >> security >> number above/below x) to make it finite, and this might be quite >> tricky to spot. > > Not an issue in OWL 1.0, since no way to say above/below. But I can > see the problem in 1.1+ > >> If I remember your use case for this correctly, then you might >> want to >> consider using DL-safe rules for this: >> >> x = y :- hss(x,n), hss(y,n) >> >> This will make sure that all individuals in your ABox have >> different social security numbers.... > > Working on it. In Pellet, where I've been working, the rules don't > yet support SameIndividual as consequent. Just downloaded KAON2 and > will have a look at that. Other suggestions for rule engine are > welcome. > > -Alan > From matthew.pocock at ncl.ac.uk Wed Mar 1 14:09:34 2006 From: matthew.pocock at ncl.ac.uk (Matthew Pocock) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:09:34 +0000 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> Message-ID: <200603011909.34364.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> On Wednesday 01 March 2006 17:33, Uli Sattler wrote: > It might be rather disastrous on the performance since, if > you consider again the SSN example where SSNs are > between 1 and 100,000,000...but it does not affect its > decidability. Hehe - sorry to have kicked this all off. I will be in Manchester at the end of March if you want to tell me off in person :-) You say this could have disastrous performance effects - is this one of those things that kills you all the time, or only if you have a collection of declarations that actually include inverse datatype properties? Matthew From alanruttenberg at gmail.com Wed Mar 1 14:14:45 2006 From: alanruttenberg at gmail.com (Alan Ruttenberg) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:14:45 -0500 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> <4403488B.8030109@cs.umd.edu> <7785df8913fa9d4d6b6d9c359caf48c4@cs.man.ac.uk> <6A3DECE7-6C0A-4649-BABE-35588EDB4C34@mumble.net> <29C0C99F-43A7-4DF4-9786-52EF777D0008@cs.man.ac.uk> Message-ID: <2C335CD2-D42A-4E87-B2C1-BBECE578631B@gmail.com> Well, I think the can of worms boils down to this. It is highly desirable to have some support for inversefunctional datatype properties in OWL. Even though some of the things you can do with them (and more) can be accomplished by other methods, such as rules or nominals, it is more compact and intuitive to express them as properties since people are already familiar with them from the database world and elsewhere. Also, there are known SW applications that make heavy use of them, e.g. foaf. It also lowers the burden on users of the technology, who don't (yet) have to go to the next layer (rules). Particularly as rule standards aren't at the same level of adoption as OWL is. So if it is possible to identify portions of this functionality that can reasonably incorporated into reasoners then I think we should consider doing so, if possible for 1.1. Pellet, at least, seems to be going in this direction already. It seems that the major variables in this are (summarizing from the conversation and your paper) - cardinality of domain (finite versus infinite) - predicates (= vs more complicated ones) - used in conjunction with role composition or not - unary or not There is already precedent in OWL for limiting functionality to certain classes of properties - simple versus complex properties. So the challenge to you folks (dl wizards) is: What's the low hanging fruit here? What are fragments of this functionality that we could safely include in OWL? Even the most restrictive case: unary, infinite domain, only = predicate, not in conjunction with role composition, would, I think, be extremely helpful. -Alan On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Uli Sattler wrote: > Hi, it's me again: Ian finally convinced me that we > CAN do better: we can claim that it shouldn't be too difficult > to show that > > "adding inverseFunctional datatype properties to OWL-DL > preserves its decidability, even with comparisons or other > predicates. " > > It might be rather disastrous on the performance since, if > you consider again the SSN example where SSNs are > between 1 and 100,000,000...but it does not affect its > decidability. > > So, I hope i haven't opened any > can or tin or such like....cheers, Uli > > > >> On Feb 28, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Ulrike Sattler wrote: >>> ok, so imagine you have a datatype property "hasSocialSecurity", >>> hss, >>> with range MyInteger, and domain Citizen. >>> >>> Now, you can make Citizen a subclass of Human, and can enforce >>> an infinite "chain" of humans using standard OWL constructs, ie, a >>> human >>> and all its ancestors---and you can make sure that this chain is >>> infinite. >> >> How does make sure the chain is infinite? I started to write this up; >> >> human, subclass of restriction parent some human >> >> then got stuck trying to figure out how to force (parent of x) not >> equal x. >> >>> Now it depends on the size of MyInteger whether the resulting >>> ontology >>> is consistent or not....if it's infinite, then it's consistent, >>> other inconsistent. >> >> Nice. >> >>> This is the easy case -- imagine, if only adult Citizen need to >>> have a >>> social security number...or when they are employed/have a permanent >>> job, etc. ...all sorts of things that mean that only some Citizens >>> need to have a social security number...I can't think of a >>> "practicable" way of >>> reasoning in this case, and I wouldn't be surprised* if it turned >>> out that, for >>> certain (surprisingly simple) datatypes, such an extension is >>> undecidable. >> >> Ok, I understand the problem when the range is finite, at least. >> >>> The "way out" using "we use a datatype with an infinite domain" >>> doesn't >>> help, either (or perhaps only with severest syntactic >>> restrictions): you >>> might use comparisons (such as "Humans of kind C have a social >>> security >>> number above/below x) to make it finite, and this might be quite >>> tricky to spot. >> >> Not an issue in OWL 1.0, since no way to say above/below. But I can >> see the problem in 1.1+ >> >>> If I remember your use case for this correctly, then you might >>> want to >>> consider using DL-safe rules for this: >>> >>> x = y :- hss(x,n), hss(y,n) >>> >>> This will make sure that all individuals in your ABox have >>> different social security numbers.... >> >> Working on it. In Pellet, where I've been working, the rules don't >> yet support SameIndividual as consequent. Just downloaded KAON2 and >> will have a look at that. Other suggestions for rule engine are >> welcome. >> >> -Alan >> > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk Thu Mar 2 07:20:04 2006 From: Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk (Uli Sattler) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:20:04 +0000 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: <200603011909.34364.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> <200603011909.34364.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2006, at 19:09, Matthew Pocock wrote: > On Wednesday 01 March 2006 17:33, Uli Sattler wrote: > >> It might be rather disastrous on the performance since, if >> you consider again the SSN example where SSNs are >> between 1 and 100,000,000...but it does not affect its >> decidability. > > Hehe - sorry to have kicked this all off. I will be in Manchester > at the end > of March if you want to tell me off in person :-) us? telling off? Naaaa, we pull hair, but we don't tell off ;) > You say this could have > disastrous performance effects - is this one of those things that > kills you > all the time, or only if you have a collection of declarations that > actually > include inverse datatype properties? I guess that we can't prevent it from possibly killing since an inverse datatype property whose (explicit or implicit) range is of cardinality n is basically the same as introducing n nominals (with the difference that, if n is infinite, then nothing serious should happen)... Cheers, Uli > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk Thu Mar 2 07:34:48 2006 From: Ulrike.Sattler at manchester.ac.uk (Uli Sattler) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 12:34:48 +0000 Subject: [OWL] inverse datatype properties In-Reply-To: <2C335CD2-D42A-4E87-B2C1-BBECE578631B@gmail.com> References: <200602271758.23062.matthew.pocock@ncl.ac.uk> <4403488B.8030109@cs.umd.edu> <7785df8913fa9d4d6b6d9c359caf48c4@cs.man.ac.uk> <6A3DECE7-6C0A-4649-BABE-35588EDB4C34@mumble.net> <29C0C99F-43A7-4DF4-9786-52EF777D0008@cs.man.ac.uk> <2C335CD2-D42A-4E87-B2C1-BBECE578631B@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 1 Mar 2006, at 19:14, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > Well, I think the can of worms boils down to this. It is highly > desirable to have some support for inversefunctional datatype > properties in OWL. Even though some of the things you can do with > them (and more) can be accomplished by other methods, such as rules > or nominals, it is more compact and intuitive to express them as > properties since people are already familiar with them from the > database world and elsewhere. Also, there are known SW applications > that make heavy use of them, e.g. foaf. yes, this makes a lot of sense... > > It also lowers the burden on users of the technology, who don't (yet) > have to go to the next layer (rules). Particularly as rule standards > aren't at the same level of adoption as OWL is. > > So if it is possible to identify portions of this functionality that > can reasonably incorporated into reasoners then I think we should > consider doing so, if possible for 1.1. Pellet, at least, seems to be > going in this direction already. > > It seems that the major variables in this are (summarizing from the > conversation and your paper) > > - cardinality of domain (finite versus infinite) > - predicates (= vs more complicated ones) > - used in conjunction with role composition or not oups - this is something which is ALWAYS dangerous for datatype properties! > - unary or not shouldn't make too much of a difference > > There is already precedent in OWL for limiting functionality to > certain classes of properties - simple versus complex properties. > > So the challenge to you folks (dl wizards) is: What's the low hanging > fruit here? What are fragments of this functionality that we could > safely include in OWL? Even the most restrictive case: unary, > infinite domain, only = predicate, not in conjunction with role > composition, would, I think, be extremely helpful. I appreciate this, but then we would have to either (1) give up more powerful comparisons, comparisons with constants, other predicates or (2) have 2 different kind of datatype properties: those that might act as keys, and those with more powerful predicates I guess that (1) is a NO since this would disallow a very useful feature, and (2) is a NO since this would complicate the syntax even more... So my suggestion would be to wait with this for OWL2, meanwhile, somebody will hopefully come up with a proof for the feasibility of a third, more comprehensive solution... Cheers, Uli > > -Alan > > On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Uli Sattler wrote: > >> Hi, it's me again: Ian finally convinced me that we >> CAN do better: we can claim that it shouldn't be too difficult >> to show that >> >> "adding inverseFunctional datatype properties to OWL-DL >> preserves its decidability, even with comparisons or other >> predicates. " >> >> It might be rather disastrous on the performance since, if >> you consider again the SSN example where SSNs are >> between 1 and 100,000,000...but it does not affect its >> decidability. >> >> So, I hope i haven't opened any >> can or tin or such like....cheers, Uli >> >> >> >>> On Feb 28, 2006, at 3:29 AM, Ulrike Sattler wrote: >>>> ok, so imagine you have a datatype property "hasSocialSecurity", >>>> hss, >>>> with range MyInteger, and domain Citizen. >>>> >>>> Now, you can make Citizen a subclass of Human, and can enforce >>>> an infinite "chain" of humans using standard OWL constructs, ie, a >>>> human >>>> and all its ancestors---and you can make sure that this chain is >>>> infinite. >>> >>> How does make sure the chain is infinite? I started to write this >>> up; >>> >>> human, subclass of restriction parent some human >>> >>> then got stuck trying to figure out how to force (parent of x) not >>> equal x. >>> >>>> Now it depends on the size of MyInteger whether the resulting >>>> ontology >>>> is consistent or not....if it's infinite, then it's consistent, >>>> other inconsistent. >>> >>> Nice. >>> >>>> This is the easy case -- imagine, if only adult Citizen need to >>>> have a >>>> social security number...or when they are employed/have a permanent >>>> job, etc. ...all sorts of things that mean that only some Citizens >>>> need to have a social security number...I can't think of a >>>> "practicable" way of >>>> reasoning in this case, and I wouldn't be surprised* if it turned >>>> out that, for >>>> certain (surprisingly simple) datatypes, such an extension is >>>> undecidable. >>> >>> Ok, I understand the problem when the range is finite, at least. >>> >>>> The "way out" using "we use a datatype with an infinite domain" >>>> doesn't >>>> help, either (or perhaps only with severest syntactic >>>> restrictions): you >>>> might use comparisons (such as "Humans of kind C have a social >>>> security >>>> number above/below x) to make it finite, and this might be quite >>>> tricky to spot. >>> >>> Not an issue in OWL 1.0, since no way to say above/below. But I can >>> see the problem in 1.1+ >>> >>>> If I remember your use case for this correctly, then you might >>>> want to >>>> consider using DL-safe rules for this: >>>> >>>> x = y :- hss(x,n), hss(y,n) >>>> >>>> This will make sure that all individuals in your ABox have >>>> different social security numbers.... >>> >>> Working on it. In Pellet, where I've been working, the rules don't >>> yet support SameIndividual as consequent. Just downloaded KAON2 and >>> will have a look at that. Other suggestions for rule engine are >>> welcome. >>> >>> -Alan >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OWL mailing list >> OWL at lists.mindswap.org >> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From sure at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de Thu Mar 16 09:41:59 2006 From: sure at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de (York Sure) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 15:41:59 +0100 Subject: [OWL] EON2006: Call for Evaluations and Demos for the Ontology Evaluation Challenge Message-ID: <20060316144200.DF7DBAAEFF@gimli.mindlab.umd.edu> Apologies for cross-posting. Please forward this mail to anyone interested. *********************************************************************** CALL FOR EVALUATIONS AND DEMOS Ontology Evaluation Challenge at the 4th International EON Workshop Workshop on Evaluation of Ontologies for the Web (EON2006) Held in conjunction with the 15th International World Wide Web Conference Edinburgh International Conference Center, Edinburgh, UK May 22nd, 2006 *********************************************************************** OBJECTIVES ========== In this year's EON workshop we bring together researchers and practitioners interested in the evaluation of ontologies for the web. The aim of this workshop is to ground Ontology Evaluation firmly on the needs of the Semantic Web, especially regarding its web-like characteristics like high interconnectivity, constant change and incompleteness. EVALUATION AND DEMOS ==================== At the EON workshop there will be a practical session, where a number of ontologies are to be evaluated by the participants beforehand and the results being discussed at the workshop. In order to obtain an intensive exchange of ideas between the participants, there will be left extensive time for discussion. The previous workshops (EON2002, EON2003 and EON2004) proposed a series of experiments for evaluating different aspects of ontology tools, e.g. their expressiveness and interoperability capabilities. This year we focus on ontologies themselves. The EON2006 workshop is intended to be a platform to discuss results and further steps with interested parties. We explicitly encourage people to make demos of their tools. We will reserve time slots for demos in the workshop. We ask all participants to evaluate a number of ontologies according to their approaches. The workshop will facilitate discussion by comparing the results of the participants. This is not meant as a test or as homework, because we also don?t know the correct results, if there are any ? it is the goal of this workshop to move towards an answer for this very question. The ontologies can be downloaded at the workshop?s website. A final panel will discuss the research agenda for the coming years, based on the presentations and results from the demos, evaluations and discussions. IMPORTANT DATES =============== Demo proposals due: April 14th, 2006 Evaluation results submission: April 14th, 2006 Notification on demos: April 21st, 2006 Notification on evaluation: April 21st, 2006 Workshop: May 22nd, 2006 SUBMISSIONS FOR DEMO PROPOSALS ============================== Interested presenters should submit an electronic PDF of their demo proposal to eon2006 at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de prior to the deadline. The proposal should include include: title, author names, affiliations, and electronic mail addresses for all authors, a brief abstract, a screenshot, and a short description of what will be shown in the demo. All correspondence will be sent to the author mentioned as contact person in the electronic title page (by default, the first author). Demo proposals should not exceed 2 pages and should be formatted according to the guidelines of the WWW conference (see ). SUBMISSIONS OF EVALUATION RESULTS ================================= Interested authors should submit an electronic PDF and source version of their evaluation results to eon2006 at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de prior to the deadline. Evaluation results should be formatted according to the guidelines of the WWW conference (see http://www2006.org/cfp/submissions.php ). All correspondence will be sent to the author mentioned as contact person in the electronic title page (by default, the first author). Evaluations need to include the following: title, author names, affiliations, and electronic mail addresses for all authors, a brief abstract, a short summary of the evaluation approach (up to one page), the results of each performed ontology evaluation, sorted by the ontologies, and how much time the evaluation of each ontology took. For each ontology you did not evaluate explain why. We do not want to limit the length of the evaluation results, as this will depend heavily on your approach, but we ask you to keep them concise. Detailed results should be delivered in an ontology itself. A simple starting point for the format is provided, but needs to be extended by the evaluators needs. For the publication of the ontology evaluation results we will work out a format with the authors individually, depending on the number and form of submissions. For the workshop we will distribute all accepted evaluation results in order to ease discussion. The form of the final publication of the evaluation results will be decided later and depends on the quality and number of submitted evaluations. ONTOLOGIES ========== The ontologies are available at Here we describe the ontologies shortly. We ask you to evaluate each of the four ontologies, so that we can discuss our findings and compare the evaluation approaches. oe1: This is a single file with metadata about Elvis impersonators. It was developed by a single person. oe2: The ROVE ontology describes the Summer School for Ontology Engineering and the Semantic Web 2005. It was developed by a small team. oe3: This is the metadata about the AIFB institute. The SWRC ontology provides the vocabulary. The instance data, although offered in one file, is being editet by all members of the AIFB institute, not all of them knowledgeable in the Semantic Web domain. oe4: This is a collection of more than a hundred FOAF-files taken from the web. The source URIs are included. We regard this collection as a standard situation on the Semantic Web, where information will be compiled from several, decentralized sources. We regard this collection as one ontology. ORGANIZERS ========== * Denny Vrandecic, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Germany * Mari Carmen Suarez-Figueroa, Facultad de Informatica, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain * Aldo Gangemi, Laboratory for Applied Ontology, Institute for Cognitive Sciences and Technology, Rome, Italy * York Sure, Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe, Germany PROGRAM COMMITTEE ================= * Sean Bechhofer, University of Manchester (UK) * Christopher Brewster, University of Sheffield (UK) * Dan Brickley, Semantic Web Vapourware Ltd and ILRT, University of Bristol (UK) * Oscar Corcho, University of Manchester (UK) * Roberta Cuel, University of Trento (IT) * Mariano Fernandez-Lopez, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (ES) * Asuncion Gomez-Perez, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (ES) * Marko Grobelnik, Jozef Stefan Institute (SI) * Nicola Guarino, Laboratory for Applied Ontology (IT) * Kouji Kozaki, Osaka University (JP) * Deborah McGuinness, Stanford University (US) * Libby Miller, Asemantics (IT) * Enrico Motta, Open University (UK) * Elena Paslaru Bontas, Freie Universitaet Berlin (DE) * Sofia Pinto, Technical University of Lisbon (PT) * Robert Porzel, European Media Laboratory (DE) * Steffen Staab, Universit?t Koblenz (DE) * Rudi Studer, University of Karlsruhe (DE) * Chris Welty, IBM (US) CONTACT ======= You may enquire all further information from Denny Vrandecic, denny at aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de WORKSHOP HOMEPAGE ================= http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/eon2006 -- Dr. York Sure Institute AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (TH) phone: +49 (0) 721 608 6592 web: http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu From jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk Mon Mar 20 07:55:42 2006 From: jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk (Jeff Z. Pan) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:55:42 -0000 Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics References: <20060113153420.x7xfnkc09jwwgo8g@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk> Message-ID: <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton> Hi Bernardo, I don't recall any answer to this. We just had a telecon on WP2.5 of the Knowledge Web project, and Ian suggested me to check with you again on this. Greetings, Jeff ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Z. Pan" To: "Bernardo Cuenca Grau" Cc: Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:34 PM Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics > Bernardo, > >> The formal Semantics draft for OWL 1.1 is now available at: >> >> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg/OWLSemantics.pdf > > Thanks for the work. A quick comment about datatypes: according to the OWL 1.1 > syntax [1], OWL 1.1 supports datatype expressions, which are not covered by > concrete domains but by datatype groups [2]. > > Cheers, > > Jeff. > -- > > > [1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html#2.3 > [2] OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL, an online version is > available > at http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/ps/pub/2005-24 > > > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 20 08:43:17 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:43:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics In-Reply-To: <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton> References: <20060113153420.x7xfnkc09jwwgo8g@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk> <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton> Message-ID: <20060320.084317.122916707.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Well, OWL 1.1 has facilities for handling datatypes, derived from XML Schema. Whether this makes them concrete domains or datatype groups is a separate issue, not covered by the OWL 1.1 documents at present. peter From: "Jeff Z. Pan" Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:55:42 -0000 > > Hi Bernardo, > > I don't recall any answer to this. We just had a telecon on WP2.5 of the > Knowledge Web project, and Ian suggested me to check with you again on this. > > Greetings, > Jeff > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Z. Pan" > To: "Bernardo Cuenca Grau" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:34 PM > Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics > > > > Bernardo, > > > >> The formal Semantics draft for OWL 1.1 is now available at: > >> > >> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg/OWLSemantics.pdf > > > > Thanks for the work. A quick comment about datatypes: according to the OWL > 1.1 > > syntax [1], OWL 1.1 supports datatype expressions, which are not covered by > > concrete domains but by datatype groups [2]. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Jeff. > > -- > > > > > > [1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html#2.3 > > [2] OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL, an online version is > > available > > at http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/ps/pub/2005-24 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OWL mailing list > > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > > > > _______________________________________________ > OWL mailing list > OWL at lists.mindswap.org > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl From jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk Mon Mar 20 09:10:29 2006 From: jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk (Jeff Z. Pan) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:10:29 -0000 Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics References: <20060113153420.x7xfnkc09jwwgo8g@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk><06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton> <20060320.084317.122916707.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <078e01c64c28$0e578f60$d3d7858b@Newton> > Well, OWL 1.1 has facilities for handling datatypes, derived from XML Schema. > Whether this makes them concrete domains or datatype groups is a separate > issue, not covered by the OWL 1.1 documents at present. I disagree. To support XML Schema derived datatypes, OWL 1.1 needs to provide datatype expressions, which is not covered by concrete domains, but by datatype groups. Jeff > peter > > > From: "Jeff Z. Pan" > Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:55:42 -0000 > >> >> Hi Bernardo, >> >> I don't recall any answer to this. We just had a telecon on WP2.5 of the >> Knowledge Web project, and Ian suggested me to check with you again on this. >> >> Greetings, >> Jeff >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Jeff Z. Pan" >> To: "Bernardo Cuenca Grau" >> Cc: >> Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:34 PM >> Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics >> >> >> > Bernardo, >> > >> >> The formal Semantics draft for OWL 1.1 is now available at: >> >> >> >> http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg/OWLSemantics.pdf >> > >> > Thanks for the work. A quick comment about datatypes: according to the OWL >> 1.1 >> > syntax [1], OWL 1.1 supports datatype expressions, which are not covered by >> > concrete domains but by datatype groups [2]. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > >> > Jeff. >> > -- >> > >> > >> > [1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html#2.3 >> > [2] OWL-Eu: Adding Customised Datatypes into OWL, an online version is >> > available >> > at http://www.websemanticsjournal.org/ps/pub/2005-24 >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OWL mailing list >> > OWL at lists.mindswap.org >> > http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OWL mailing list >> OWL at lists.mindswap.org >> http://lists.mindswap.org/mailman/listinfo/owl > From pfps at research.bell-labs.com Mon Mar 20 09:27:13 2006 From: pfps at research.bell-labs.com (Peter F. Patel-Schneider) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:27:13 -0500 (EST) Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics In-Reply-To: <078e01c64c28$0e578f60$d3d7858b@Newton> References: <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton> <20060320.084317.122916707.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> <078e01c64c28$0e578f60$d3d7858b@Newton> Message-ID: <20060320.092713.100790309.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> From: "Jeff Z. Pan" Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:10:29 -0000 > > > Well, OWL 1.1 has facilities for handling datatypes, derived from XML Schema. > > Whether this makes them concrete domains or datatype groups is a separate > > issue, not covered by the OWL 1.1 documents at present. > > I disagree. To support XML Schema derived datatypes, OWL 1.1 needs to provide > datatype expressions, which is not covered by concrete domains, but by datatype > groups. > > Jeff Just what is the difference? peter From jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk Mon Mar 20 12:17:49 2006 From: jpan at csd.abdn.ac.uk (Jeff Z. Pan) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:17:49 -0000 Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics References: <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton><20060320.084317.122916707.pfps@research.bell-labs.com><078e01c64c28$0e578f60$d3d7858b@Newton> <20060320.092713.100790309.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> Message-ID: <09ad01c64c42$3a9a96c0$d3d7858b@Newton> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" To: Cc: ; Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:27 PM Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics > From: "Jeff Z. Pan" > Subject: Re: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] OWL 1.1 Model-Theoretic Semantics > Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 14:10:29 -0000 > >> >> > Well, OWL 1.1 has facilities for handling datatypes, derived from XML Schema. >> > Whether this makes them concrete domains or datatype groups is a separate >> > issue, not covered by the OWL 1.1 documents at present. >> >> I disagree. To support XML Schema derived datatypes, OWL 1.1 needs to provide >> datatype expressions, which is not covered by concrete domains, but by datatype >> groups. >> >> Jeff > > Just what is the difference? The conceptual difference, which is already mentioned in previous email, is that the concrete domain approach does not cover XML Schema derived datatypes, while the datatype group approach does. Technically speaking, it is not enough, as mentioned in document [1], to simply consider a set of supported datatypes and their predicates. Some forms of datatype expressions are necessary to cover the expressiveness of XML Schema simple types. Jeff [1] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~bcg/OWLSemantics.pdf -- Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/) Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen > peter > From bernardo at mindswap.org Mon Mar 20 13:32:33 2006 From: bernardo at mindswap.org (Bernardo Cuenca Grau) Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:32:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [OWL] [ALL][OWL 1.1] New OWL 1.1 Website In-Reply-To: <09ad01c64c42$3a9a96c0$d3d7858b@Newton> References: <06e901c64c1d$9c2c2860$d3d7858b@Newton><20060320.084317.122916707.pfps@research.bell-labs.com><078e01c64c28$0e578f60$d3d7858b@Newton> <20060320.092713.100790309.pfps@research.bell-labs.com> <09ad01c64c42$3a9a96c0$d3d7858b@Newton> Message-ID: Hi all, There is a new OWL 1.1 website that supercedes the previous one (if you try the old URL you will be automatically redirected). http://owl1_1.cs.manchester.ac.uk Cheers Bernardo