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: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:48:47 -0000
To: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "'Jeremy Carroll'" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <002801c831e6$ed8e1550$2711a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

Here is a proposal on how to address this issue: we could simply amend the text in Section 1 of the mapping document with the
following text:

"Let O be any ontology in functional-style syntax, G the result of converting O into an RDF graph using the translation from Section
2, and O' the result of converting G into an ontology in functional-style syntax using the translation from Section 3. Then, O and
O' are syntactically equivalent, modulo n-ary constructs such as DisjointClasses, EquivalentClasses, etc. Furthermore, O and O' are
always semantically equivalent."

Please let me know if you have any comments about this formulation.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Carroll
> Sent: 21 November 2007 12:02
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'OWL Working Group WG'
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-66 (mapping inconsistencies): REPORTED: inconsistencies between mapping rules
> 
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> 
> > To summarize, I believe that having a translation in both directions should only improve the spec
> by making it clearer and easier to
> > understand. Ultimately, this should lead to fewer compatibility issues between implementations.
> 
> That's very likely. I am raising issues, not trying to suggest which
> were hard; not trying to be super-critical; merely reviewing - aiming
> for improvement.
> 
> Also I was on the whole trying to *not* suggest my preferred solutions
> to any issues. That seems a different part of the process.
> 
> Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 28 November 2007 17:49:34 GMT

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