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

SubObjectPropertyChain question

From: Xiaoshu Wang <wangxiao@musc.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:56:28 -0500
Message-ID: <45F1D80C.8060900@musc.edu>
To: public-owl-dev@w3.org


I am trying to figure out the translation of OWL 1.1 to the OWL RDF 
syntax.  But I have some trouble to understand the translation of the 
SubObjectPropertyChain.  From [1], it says that

SubObjectPropertyOf(subObjectPropertyChain(op_1 ... op_n ) op) should be 
translated into
T(SEQ op_1 ... op_n ) SUBPROPERTYOF[op_1 ,...,op_n ,op] T(op).

If I understand correctly (if not, please let me know), this translation 
will suggest an rdf:List will be an rdf:Property.  Since the domain of 
rdfs:subPropertyOf is rdf:Property.  But rdf:List is defined to be a 
rdfs:Class in http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns, so this 
automatically put OWL1.1 into OWL-full.  Or, the OWL 1.1's punning comes 
to rescue here?

I wonder if it be cleaner to translate this as an Axiom.  For instance, 
define a term called owl11:ObjectPropertyChainAxiom and assign it two 
property "propChain" which ranges over an rdf:List and a superProp 
ranges over an Object.  So it would be something like

_:x rdf:type owl11:ObjectPropertyChainAxiom;
      owl11:propChain T(SEQ p1, ... pn).
      owl11:superProp op.

Another question about the document is why all collection is transformed 
to rdf:List.  Most should be a BAG.  In RDF/XML, writing a list is quite 
cumbersome, but for BAG, parsetype="Collection" can be used.  I wonder 
it is just a careless of writing or is there a reason that rdf:List must 
be used?


1. http://www.w3.org/Submission/owl11-rdf_mapping/
Received on Friday, 9 March 2007 21:57:44 UTC

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