W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > October to December 2006

Re: Limitations of OWL 1.1 to RDF mapping

From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:35:05 +0000
Message-Id: <db4891f7e5cedf7200337e3a224cd5f5@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

On 17 Nov 2006, at 17:01, Dave Reynolds wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2006, at 9:52 PM, Holger Knublauch wrote:
>>> The current OWL 1.1 Mapping to RDF Graphs draft [1] states
>>> "Not every OWL 1.1 ontology can be serialized in RDF. In particular, 
>>> ontologies using the following features of OWL 1.1 cannot be 
>>> serialized:
>> These statements should be read as qualified with "under the current 
>> mapping".
>>> 1. punning and
>>> 2. annotations on axioms."
>>> Could anyone please clarify the implications of this statement.  Is 
>>> the plan of the group to leave it like this, or are changes to the 
>>> OWL 1.1 spec underway to ensure that there will be a complete 
>>> mapping to RDF Graphs?  Or, will we see an "OWL 1.0.9" that will be 
>>> complete in RDF but with less features than 1.1?
>> The RDF mapping has lagged behind the others, but the plan is to 
>> extend the mapping to cover these cases.
> Presumably this will remain a purely syntactic mapping and the comment 
> in your "Next Steps for OWL" paper [1]:
>    "A triple syntax is being provided for OWL 1.1, syntactically
>    compatible with the triple syntax for OWL DL. However, for the above
>    reasons, this syntax could not be given a meaning compatible with 
> the
>    RDF meaning for triples ..."
> will still apply?

The current status is that OWL 1.1 has a triple syntax that is fully 
backwards compatible with OWL: any OWL DL ontology is an OWL 1.1 
ontology. There are a couple of new features of OWL 1.1 that we were 
having trouble figuring out how to serialise as triples, but after 
discussions at ISWC and the OWLED workshop (thanks to Alan Ruttenberg 
for some helpful suggestions) we now have a solution, and a revision of 
the triple syntax that covers all of OWL 1.1 will soon be available. 
Regarding the semantics, it may not be possible to extend OWL's 
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics so as to *completely* capture 
the meaning of OWL 1.1 while at the same time giving *all* the triples 
their basic RDF meaning as facts. Due to the backwards compatibility of 
the syntax, however, the meaning of the OWL part of OWL 1.1 will be 
captured by the existing RDF-Compatible Semantics, and interest has 
been expressed in trying to extend this (the existing RDF-Compatible 
Semantics) so as to capture at least some of the meaning of the OWL 1.1 



> Dave
> [1] http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/acceptedLong/submission_11.pdf
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 15:35:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:14 UTC