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: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:47:16 +0000
Message-Id: <47baeb273b710cf40a5304ea1b5f6696@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>

On 20 Nov 2006, at 17:28, Jim Hendler wrote:

> 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?

Up to now, there hasn't been any attempt to extend the RDF-Compatible 
Model-Theoretic Semantics so as to capture the meaning of OWL 1.1. 
Assuming that this is what you mean by not being an extension of OWL 
Full, then it is certainly right that this is the current status.

> 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)?

Of course every OWL 1.1 ontology is an OWL Full ontology, so in this 
sense OWL Full, by its very nature, will be syntactically aligned with 
OWL 1.1. I guess what you are asking about is extending the 
RDF-Compatible Model-Theoretic Semantics so as to make the extra syntax 
meaningful in OWL Full. As I mentioned, interest has been expressed in 
working on this, so I guess that the answer is yes -- it is likely that 
there will be such an effort.


>  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 Wednesday, 22 November 2006 22:47:26 UTC

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