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

That was my impression.  However, I was mistaken in assuming 
as-best-as-possible would transform rdf:Property to 
owl:AnnotationProperty.  Protege doesn't list those as Annotation 
properties, with or without reasoning.

The original question was how to process an "OWL 2 Web Ontology Language 
RDF-Based Semantics (Second Edition)" ontology.  With or without a 
reasoner turned on, Protege lists classes and individuals (I think 
courtesy of an OWLAPI transform) but not rdf:Properties.  I'll check 
back with the people who are using that standard, which has a set of its 
own axiomatic triples.

On 1/20/2025 1:47 PM, Samson Tu wrote:
> I don’t think the difference in your input/output example resulted 
> from transformations described in the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language 
> RDF-Based Semantics (Second Edition) document.
>
> When you load a file in Protégé, the OWLAPI attempts to interpret the 
> file content as an OWL-2 ontology as best as possible. Because an 
> rdf:Property is not an OWL construct, OWLAPI converts it into an OWL 
> annotation property, as it doesn’t have the information to turn it 
> into an object or data property.
>
> The output happens to transfer the comment triple to the beginning. It 
> doesn’t mean that oslc:allowedValue is a comment.
>
> Samson
>
>> On Jan 20, 2025, at 10:17 AM, Steve Vestal via protege-user 
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>

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