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

RE: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:42:07 -0000
To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000501c82ba5$0d7ca590$2711a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

There is no inconsistency here: if you serialize an OWL Functional Syntax ontology into RDF and read it back, you'll get the same
ontology, modulo pair-wise axioms (such as DifferentIndividuals).

I don't really believe that we need a proof for that; however, I agree that saying this explicitly in the document is a good idea.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of OWL Working
> Group Issue Tracker
> Sent: 20 November 2007 14:53
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules
> 
> 
> 
> ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
> 
> Raised by: Jeremy Carroll
> On product:
> 
> 
> The OWL 1.0 mapping rules only mapped from the abstract syntax to the triples.
> 
> The member submission defines two sets of mapping rules (going both ways).
> 
> Presumably there is some relationship required between the two sets of mapping rules.
> 
> This relationship is neither stated nor proved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2007 18:43:00 GMT

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