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

Re: declaredAs

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:05:35 -0400
Message-Id: <51B708F5-793B-4E35-8A44-AF3E4C81E45F@gmail.com>
Cc: Owl Dev <public-owl-dev@w3.org>
To: Matthew Horridge <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>

On Jul 26, 2007, at 9:35 AM, Matthew Horridge wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2007, at 14:21, Evren Sirin wrote:
>> On 7/25/07 10:13 AM, Matthew Horridge wrote:
>>> Revisiting the issue of declaring and typing, because it is  
>>> causing problems - in particular backwards compatibility with OWL  
>>> 1.0
>>>> On 26 Jan 2007, at 20:22, Evren Sirin wrote:
>>>> In OWL 1.0, there is not really a difference between  
>>>> declarations and typing. Having a triple <p, rdf:type,  
>>>> owl:ObjectProperty>  constitutes its declaration (as on object  
>>>> property in this case). I agree that requiring declaration for  
>>>> every resource is not a good idea. OWL-DL requires every  
>>>> resource to be typed and it turns out that many ontologies out  
>>>> on the Web fall into OWL-DL expressivity but do not meet this  
>>>> requirement. But now are we separating declarations from typing  
>>>> and say that declarations are not required but typing still is?
>>>> And if I understand the mapping from RDF graphs to OWL 1.1  
>>>> correctly, an ontology that has just the above triple (or any  
>>>> any number of rdf:type triples where the object is one of  
>>>> owl:ObjectProperty, owl:DatatypeProperty, or owl:Class) will be  
>>>> mapped to an empty OWL 1.1 ontology. I don't think this is a  
>>>> desired result.
>>> I am in complete agreement with the last point.  There are plenty  
>>> (enough to cause problems) of ontologies that just consist of  
>>> rdf:type triples such as A rdf:type owl:Class.  As Evren points  
>>> out, when parsed, these documents result in empty ontologies,  
>>> which is less than desirable - users of tools such as editors  
>>> find this confusing and don't expect it.  Does anyone have any  
>>> suggestions about how to resolve this?
>> My suggestion (which I might have mentioned in the past) is to  
>> drop owl11:declaredAs keyword completely and use rdf:type instead.  
>> In the RDF/XML mapping, the triple C rdf:type owl:Class would be  
>> mapped to Declaration(OWLClass(C)) directly (similarly for  
>> properties, individuals and datatypes).
> I completely agree.
> Matthew

I concur. The current dropping of the type triples make it impossible  
for me to use the OWLAPI or P4 for OBI, which is OWL-DL 1.0. The  
other blocker is the inability to have annotations on annotation  

Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 16:05:41 UTC

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