W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 03:59:27 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20071107.035927.84678861.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk
Cc: hendler@cs.rpi.edu, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:14:26 +0000

> On Nov 6, 2007, at 9:40 PM, Jim Hendler wrote:
> > Bijan, can you let us know your reasons for these, esp number 8- if  
> > we can do keys, couldnt we do this by same mechanism?

> sure
> >> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/2 (easy yes)
> AllDisjoint not being in the RDF mapping seems pretty clearly a bug.  
> What's the advantage of syntatic sugar that doesn't appear in the  
> only canonical exchange syntax?

The status of owl:allDisjoint goes back to a decision by the WebOnt WG.
There was quite a bit of discussion related to the matter, including the
threads starting at:


I expect that there are also earlier threads as well.

There are also the following issue and piece of the Guide:


Remember that RDF doesn't have syntactic sugar, so you can't exactly
argue from the "missing syntactic sugar" viewpoint.


> Hope this helps.
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

If we are looking for easy yesses in the RDF mapping then we should fix
the bug that the OWL 1.1 mapping doesn't allow the OWL 1.0 mapping to
owl:AllDifferent.  This is a counterexample to the claim that all OWL
1.0 ontologies in RDF form are also OWL 1.1 ontologies in RDF form.  (I
had though that ISSUE-2 was this one until now.)

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 09:11:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:00 UTC