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

Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 09:21:07 +0000
Message-Id: <2024B9C2-47BE-4A89-8372-B4532DB49A15@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: hendler@cs.rpi.edu, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Nov 7, 2007, at 8:59 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[snip stuff from webont that I don't see is relevant]
> Remember that RDF doesn't have syntactic sugar, so you can't exactly
> argue from the "missing syntactic sugar" viewpoint.

C'mon. We have some owl constructs in RDF/XML that are definable in  
terms of others. We added AllDisjoint to OWL 1.1 explicitly to deal  
with this particular problem. Not allowing it in the rdf  
serialization is the height of perversity.

> [...]
>> 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.

That's a different category of bug. I had no idea this was missing!

> 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.)

Yes, but adding AllDisjoint is well within our brief and exactly the  
right thing to do.

Ok, I see that there is a more efficient construction...but it's not  
well known or used at all. Uhm...and does it involve datatype hacks?!  

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 09:21:30 UTC

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