Re: Agenda requests: Issues we can decide?

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?!  
Ewww.

Cheers,
Bijan.