OWL Profile a concern? about commoncoreontologies

[swartik]

Not only is ObjectSomeValuesFrom valid for non-simple properties (see here for details) reasoners I've used process it much faster than ObjectMinCardinality, irrespective of whether the property is simple.

[mark-jensen]

We don't currently validate the ontologies wrt any of the OWL profiles. But this is helpful in that we should be aware of how certain axioms affect reasoning applications. I agree that asserting min cardinality 0 is not informative.

This has me wondering:
I am pretty sure asserting min cardinality of 1 can be accomplished with a standard existential restriction.

Eg-
SubClassOf(cco:SolarPanelSystem ObjectMinCardinality(1 ro:has_part cco:SolarPanel))
is equivalent to
SubClassOf(cco:SolarPanelSystem ObjectSomeValuesFrom(ro:has_part cco:SolarPanel))

Would use of the latter be valid in DL despite has_part being non-simple?

[dlutz2]

Yes, I believe the rewrite to SomeValuesFrom is OWL-DL even if the property is non-simple. The DL constraint seems to only apply to the use of non-simple properties in cardinality restrictions.

Also, I have been thinking about the min cardinality 0. It definitely has no logical implications but the statement that a Solar Panel System might have a battery(ies) is informative to a human because it highlights the possibility. Doesn't seem to be any way to say this within a description logic ( kind of guessing here)

I'll go ahead and close this as resolved.
Thanks for the info. I am just getting into CCO in detail, in prep for a BFO/CCO based project.

[APCox]

Yes, the purpose of the "min cardinality 0" axioms is/was to be informative to the human user.
We have decided, in this case at least, to prioritize compliance with OWL-DL over human benefits - especially since we can easily include the content of these axioms in a comment or other annotation. Hence, the 1.1 version of the CCO will/should be OWL-DL compliant.

Thanks for the useful discussion!

[dlutz2]

Thanks, looking forward to CCO 1.1
BTW, do you have a nominal date for 1.1? I have a few comments/suggestions. I am currently building an ontology on top of CCO and knowing what changes/additions to expect would be useful.