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

Re: ISSUE-56 (repairsomerdf): Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL?

From: Ian Horrocks <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:25:27 +0000
Message-Id: <670F0988-6F2C-4B4A-87D0-25F6DDE013E0@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

Sounds to me as though such guidance would be more appropriately  
provided in a note, and not as part of the normative specification.

Ian


On 18 Nov 2007, at 07:00, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

>
>
> ISSUE-56 (repairsomerdf): Specify standard "repairs" for moving  
> select RDF documents to OWL?
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
> On product:
>
> From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/ 
> 0261.html
>
>
> ... makes me wonder whether it might make sense to formalize a set  
> of standard repairs, defining exactly what the suggested repairs  
> are and consequences thereof.
>
> Maybe we could call this a "profile" or somesuch, giving tool  
> providers sanction to perform these repairs when users explicitly  
> ask for RDF/RDFS to be reasoned with under the closest OWL-DL  
> semantics possible.
>
> I suggest this because even though such repair services are offered  
> by some tools, it isn't always clear what they are doing. Also,  
> having this in the specification might allow more developers who  
> want or need to use RDFS for other reasons (can't see why they  
> would, personally :) to do so, while still making provision for  
> users who wished to use the stronger inference capabilities  
> available in DL reasoners. Viewed in this context, translating  
> bnodes into skolems would be one more "repair".
>
> In other words, it provides a way for there to be a simpler  
> migration path for users of RDF/RDFS who are intrigued by OWL, but  
> not ready to commit to changing their vocabulary.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 16:25:45 GMT

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