W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-dev@w3.org > April to June 2007

Re: RDFS compatibility information in OWL-DL documents

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@MUSC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:06:31 -0400
Message-ID: <46267A47.1010205@musc.edu>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-dev@w3.org, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Alistair Miles <a.j.miles@rl.ac.uk>

Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> This is more complicated than I can easily follow for the moment. In 
> case it is helpful,  here's an example of something I was thinking of:
> Define: rdfs:imports as new ontology property. This is an instruction 
> to rdfs tools that they should include the file specified by the 
> property, and that owl reasoners should *not*. Consider the following 
> case I suggested in the context of SKOS in some earlier 
> correspondence. The idea would be that the extra triple 
> "annotationSubPropertyOf a subproperty of subproperty" would be in a 
> separate file, say "rdf-extras.rdf", and the test.rdf below would be 
> amended so that it contains
> <owl:Ontology rdf:about="#"><rdfs:imports 
> resource="rdfs-extras.rdf"/></owl:Ontology>
I think RDF has a different "import/include" model than the OWL has in 
mind.  I guess RDF people thought of a "follow your nose" kind of 
model.  In other words, if a URI is mentioned in an RDF document, all 
RDF triples resided in the mentioned URI should be included in the RDF 
model.  If you cannot find a triple to mention the URIs you would liked 
to "import/include", then you use rdfs:isDefinedBy.  This is what I 
guessed, because there is no official documentation about it.

On the other hand, OWL does not take the "follow your nose" model.  
Hence, it then created a tag of owl:imports.  This seems creating a 
confusion, at least to me.  First, what if a URI is mentioned but its 
ontology is not imported?  Second, the domain of owl:imports is 
constrained to be owl:Ontology only.  Since OWL is considered a 
vocabulary extension of RDF, and if we take the "follow your nose" 
approach and accept the "rdfs:isDefinedBy", I am not sure if the 
owl:imports is any useful.

The problem, I think, is to have a clearly defined processing 
specification about  the treatment of URI is an RDF model. If you need 
"to/or not to follow the nose" and when.  Without such a clarification, 
adding new term will only create more confusion.

That's my cents.

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 20:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:58:15 UTC