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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 11:44:36 +0000
Message-ID: <47441A24.5000309@hpl.hp.com>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
CC: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Boris Motik wrote:
> 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.

Abstractly, each set of rules defines a relationship between trees and 

The design is that relationship, not the rules.

i.e. an OWL Syntax component that has a fairy inside who reads trees and 
outputs triples, and can read triples and output trees according to that 
relationship, is a legal implementation: despite the fairy acting 
entirely on magically inspiration rather than any version of the rules.

Thus having two sets of rules defines the relationship twice: and may be 
two normative descriptions of the same aspect of the design. In general 
two descriptions describe different things, even when there are people 
asserting that they describe the same thing.

I am merely highlighting that this is a potential source of problems.

Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 11:45:05 UTC

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