Re: [protege-user] Question about OWL RDF-Based Semantics

Here's another example.  In the input file, here is a definition:

oslc:allowedValue
   a rdf:Property ;
   rdfs:isDefinedBy oslc: ;
   rdfs:label "allowedValue" ;
   rdfs:comment "Specifies the allowed values for a property (may be 
more than one)." .

If I load that file into Protege, do not turn on any reasoner, and then 
save it in another file, I find

#################################################################
#    Annotations
#################################################################

oslc:allowedValue rdfs:comment "Specifies the allowed values for a 
property (may be more than one)." ;
                   rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://open-services.net/ns/core#> ;
                   rdfs:label "allowedValue" .

I made a mistake in assuming Annotations would mean AnnotationProperty.  
I thought I had seen annotation properties in saved files.  Apparently 
it just treats rdf:Property as an rdfs:comment.

Life would be simpler and more dependable if all the ontologies out 
there were OWL2 DL ontologies, and all imports were URLs to the 
Authoritative Source of Truth.   "The measure of a man is what he does 
with power. The measure of reality is how often it ignores him." (Plato)

On 1/20/2025 11:39 AM, Michael DeBellis wrote:
>
>     For example, the input file contained the statement
>     oslc:Error a rdfs:Class ;
>     but the saved file had the statement
>     oslc:Error rdf:type owl:Class ;
>
> I'm guessing you had a file that you read in to Protege that had 
> things defined using rdfs:Class? If so then my best guess is that 
> Protege was just doing its best to translate that file into OWL 
> format. owl:Class and rdfs:Class are not the same thing. In a Protege 
> ontology you shouldn't be using rdfs:Class you should always use 
> owl:Class. It has nothing to do with which profile you use. There is a 
> profile (in theory) called OWL Full but IMO it should be called "OWL 
> Don't Ever Use this Because if you do kiss any reasoning goodbye" but 
> that's sort of a long name. The point being that OWL Full (actually, I 
> think there is a different name for it now) is something that is 
> almost never useful because it includes things that make it impossible 
> to use a reasoner.
>
> I think the default profile is what used to be called OWL DL but is 
> now just called OWL2: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/#Profiles
>
> And the various profiles: https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/ are for 
> when you want to put limits on your use of OWL 2 in order to get 
> faster reasoning. To my knowledge there is no way to do this 
> automatically in Protege. I.e., it would be a nice to have feature 
> where you could say "I just want to use OWL 2 QL" and Protege would 
> know to exclude the appropriate kinds of axioms but I don't think 
> that's possible and if you want to restrict yourself to a profile 
> other than OWL 2 you need to know what to not include yourself. 
> Although in my experience some reasoners (e.g., AllegroGraph) can 
> still handle OWL models that include expressions that aren't included 
> for performance reasons without a problem. They just ignore those axioms.
>
> That's another thing about OWL profiles. AllegroGraph and probably 
> other triplestore vendors have their own subsets of OWL based on what 
> they've found that their customers most need vs. performance of the 
> reasoner. Their goal is to support very large graphs and still get 
> acceptable reasoning performance. Regarding other parts of your question:
>
>     I was aware that Protege (OWLAPI) does some modifications to the
>     initial input in some cases. 
>
> I'm not aware of this. I think Protege looks for certain triples that 
> define the various prefixes, the name of the ontology, etc. and may 
> create some default triples if it can't find them but otherwise it 
> doesn't do any modification of the file.
>
>      Are those modifications based on the RDF to DL transformations
>     described in that standard?
>
>
> As I understand it, it is more appropriate to think of it the other 
> way. When you edit in Protege you are thinking in terms of Description 
> Logic but what Protege generates for you is RDF/RDFS triples and when 
> you save a file it stores that information in one of several different 
> possible serialization formats (RDF/XML, Turtle, JSON-LD, etc.)
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
> https://www.michaeldebellis.com/blog
>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2025 at 11:20 AM Steve Vestal via protege-user 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>     For example, the input file contained the statement
>
>     oslc:Error a rdfs:Class ;
>
>     but the saved file had the statement
>
>     oslc:Error rdf:type owl:Class ;
>
>
>     On 1/19/2025 11:59 AM, Samson Tu wrote:
>>     Can you explain what you meant by the modifications Protégé (OWLAPI) makes to the initial input?
>>
>>     Samson
>>
>>>     On Jan 19, 2025, at 5:46 AM, Steve Vestal via protege-user<[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Someone recently pointed me to the "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language RDF-Based Semantics (Second Edition)" standard.  I was aware that Protege (OWLAPI) does some modifications to the initial input in some cases.  Are those modifications based on the RDF to DL transformations described in that standard?  Is this related to OWL Full?
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     protege-user mailing list
>>>     [email protected]
>>>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>     _______________________________________________
>     protege-user mailing list
>     [email protected]
>     https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-user mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user

_______________________________________________
protege-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-user