W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-comments@w3.org > March 2009

Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:15:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20090331.131540.242925467.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-comments@w3.org
Cc: r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de
[Forwarded, as usual.]

From: Ralf Moeller <r.f.moeller@tu-harburg.de>
Subject: Re: [LC Response] To Ralf Moeller Re: OWL2
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:17:54 +0200

> On Mar 18, 2009, at 8:02 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>> Dear Ralf,
>> Thank you for your message
>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0059.html>
>> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.  This response
>> addresses the second and third parts of your message.
>> OWL does not address the RDF/XML syntax.  As far as OWL is
>> concerned RDF documents are a source of RDF graphs (i.e., sets of
>> triples).  The only place where RDF/XML is used is as a syntax for RDF
>> graphs, and as far as OWL is concerned it is the RDF graph that is
>> important, not the RDF/XML surface syntax.
>> The example that you have in your message appears to correspond fairly
>> closely to the functional syntax
>>  DatatypeRestriction(xsd:nonNegativeInteger owl2:minExclusive
>>  "65"^^xsd:int)
>> which translates into the following triples
>>  _:x rdf:type owl:DataRange
>>  _:x owl:onDataType xsd:nonNegativeInteger
>>  _:x owl:withRestrictions _:l1
>>  _:l1 rdf:first _:y1
>>  _:l1 rdf:next rdf:nil
>>  _:y1 owl:minExclusive "65"^^xsd:int
>> which can be written in RDF/XML (modulo various XML stuff) as
>>  <owl:DataRange>
>>    <owl:onDataType rdf:resource="&xsd;nonNegativeInteger" />
>>    <owl:withRestrictions  rdf:parseType="Collection">
>>       <rdf:Description>
>>          <owl2:minExclusive rdf:datatype="&xsd;int">65</owl2:minExclusive>
>>       </rdf:Description>
>>    </owl:withRestrictions>
>>  </owl:DataRange>
>> This does not appear to be any better or worse than many other ways of
>> expressing the syntax, and does not require an extra vocabulary element
>> just to take the place of the rdf:Description, whose presence here
>> appears to be benign.
> Dear Peter,
> The way you have suggested is completely ok, and our system can parse
> this.
> I would have preferred owl:Facet as the type of the description node
> from
> the perspective of OWL/RDF. I have no problems seeing OWL/RDF as
> a syntax for machine-processing only.
>> Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention that we forgot to
>> complete our work on naming datatypes.  The Working Group has decided to
>> allow the naming of datatypes in OWL 2 ontologies.  In OWL 2 DL
>> ontologies, this naming is restricted so that each datatype not in the
>> datatype map names a single expression and does not involve a loop.
>> There will be changes to several WG documents to effect this change.
>> Working versions of all these documents can be reached from the WG Wiki
>> at http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/OWL_Working_Group
> Thanks.
> Best wishes,
> Ralf
>> Please acknowledge receipt of this email to
>> <mailto:public-owl-comments@w3.org> (replying to this email should
>> suffice). In your acknowledgment please let us know whether or not you
>> are satisfied with the working group's response to your comment.
>> Regards,
>> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> on behalf of the W3C OWL Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 31 March 2009 17:14:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:29 UTC