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

RE: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:07:18 +0900
To: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c82599$f9286fe0$4600a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

I don't think this is just a translation blowup problem; rather, it is also about roundtripping from the structural spec to OWL/RDF
and back. Ideally, roundtripping is quite desirable: note that the structural spec is something that most APIs will use. It would be
good if you can load an ontology, process it, save it, and be sure that nothing has changed due to the drawbacks of one of the
syntactic formats.

Thus, I advocate keeping the language symmetric. Also, what is really against making it so? A couple of new RDF built-in properties
won't harm anyone.

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 12 November 2007 21:19
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping
> 
> 
> 
> Summary: argue against new RDF/XML constructs for equivalent-classes,
> equivalent-properties or equal-individuals, onb basis that all of these
> have O(n) constructs already.
> 
> 
> On Wed
> 
> Boris wrote:
> [[
> There are other n-ary constructs in the functional spec that are mapped
> into binary constructs in the RDF: equivalences on classes,
> disjointness and equivalences on properties, and sameAs and disjointFrom
> on individuals.
> 
> It might make sense to broaden the discussion to these features as well.
> ]]
> 
> The WebOnt rule for OWL 1.0 made sense to me:
> 
> For an n-ary construct in the abstract syntax, it must be possible to
> have an O(n) construct with the same meaning.
> 
> For the disjoint classes we were hence suggesting that the ontology
> writer should use the distinguished property approach.
> 
> This is documented in
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.21-drop-disjointUnionOf
> linking to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-guide/#DisjointClasses
> and linking to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-test-20040210/byIssue#I5.21-002
> (which, in the Manifest file, is credited to Horrocks)
> 
> At the telecon we were told that there had proved to be operational
> difficulties with this, hence a directed O(n) construct should be
> supplied for RDF/XML.
> 
> For the positive constructs (equivalent class, same individual ...)
> there are trivial O(n) RDF/XML constructs, so that we don't need to,
> (and shouldn't?) provide alternative constructs.
> 
> i.e. to work through Boris's list:
> [[
> equivalences on classes,
> equivalences on properties
> sameAs on individuals
>      trivially O(n)
> disjointness on properties
>      new, should be considered
> disjointFrom
>     on individuals ??? what's this.
> ]]
> 
> Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2007 02:08:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:27 GMT