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

Re: Limitations of OWL 1.1 to RDF mapping

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:28:26 -0500
Message-Id: <p06230921c18795d10726@[10.0.1.3]>
To: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>, Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org

Ian - if I try to translate the below into a more informal form, I 
think it says that OWL 1.1 will be an extension of OWL DL, but 
possibly not of OWL Full.  Is that right?  WOuld there still be an 
effort to make sure Full is enhanced with the same features that DL 
is (the way the current DL and Full remain syntactically aligned)?
  thanks
  JH


At 3:35 PM +0000 11/20/06, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>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 extensions.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ian
>
>
>
>>
>>  Dave
>>
>>  [1] http://owl-workshop.man.ac.uk/acceptedLong/submission_11.pdf
>>
>>

-- 
Prof James Hendler				hendler@cs.umd.edu
Dept of Computer Science			http://www.cs.umd.edu/~hendler
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 17:32:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:53 GMT