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

Re: declaredAs

From: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:22:26 -0500
Message-ID: <45BA1CB2.8040209@clarkparsia.com>
To: Boris Motik <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: 'Matthew Horridge' <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org

On 1/26/07 6:27 AM, Boris Motik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Well, we've been thinking about this, but decided not to do so for an
> important reason. Consider an ontology O containing an object property P for
> which there is no declaration. A serialization of O into an RDF graph must
> ensure the following two things:
>
> (1) When you parse the graph, you must be able to decode the type of P.
> (2) The parsing should correctly restore the "declaredness" status of P --
> that is, after parsing, the ontology should not contain a declaration for P.
>   
> Now the problem is that, to ensure compatibility with OWL DL, we use
> rdf:type to ensure (1). In the worst case, you really need to include a
> triple
>
> (3) <P, rdf:type, owl:ObjectProperty>
>
> so that, when you parse the graph, you know what the type of P is. But then,
> you should not use rdf:type to reflect the "declaredness" status of P in an
> ontology; otherwise, any ontology that contains the triple (3) will also
> contain a declaration for P.
>   
Boris, could you explain a little why (2) is needed in the first place. 
What kind of problems arise if the ontology after parsing contains a 
declaration for P? If the type of P will be decoded as ObjectProperty in 
the end, having (3) seems harmless.

Thanks,
Evren

> We weren't able to find a way out of this problem and have, consequently,
> introduced the owl:declaredAs property.
>
> Thanks anyway for this suggestion!
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> 	Boris
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org]
>> On Behalf Of Matthew Horridge
>> Sent: 26 January 2007 10:06
>> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org
>> Subject: declaredAs
>>
>>
>> All,
>>
>> I've been working on an OWL 1.1 parser/renderer recently, and I
>> wondered if we could just use rdf:type instead of owl:declaredAs for
>> entity declarations in the RDF mapping.  I can't immediately see a
>> problem with doing this, and I believe it would improve backwards
>> compatibility with the existing "OWL 1.0" RDF/XML mapping.  Any
>> thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Matthew
>>     
>
>
>
>
>
>   
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 15:22:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 27 March 2013 09:32:54 GMT