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

RE: UFDTF Metamodeling Document

From: Conrad Bock <conrad.bock@nist.gov>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:12:51 -0500
To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: <ekendall@sandsoft.com>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <cawelty@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1b4501c83374$3d810e30$b3200681@MEL.NIST.GOV>

 
Peter, Alan,

 >  > > By the way, it appears to me that the RDF metamodel allows
 >  > > regular (unreified) triples (RDFStatement) to be missing a
 >  > > subject, predicate, or object, which is not allowed in RDF.

 >  > Where is this prohibition stated in RDF?
 >  > 
 >  > -Alan

 >  I'm quite amazed that this question was even asked.  The entire
 >  notion of RDF is built around graphs of triples, which, as triples,
 >  have to have all three elements.

 >  6.1 RDF Triples
 >  
 >  An RDF triple contains three components:
 >  
 >      * the subject, which is an RDF URI reference or a blank node
 >      * the predicate, which is an RDF URI reference
 >      * the object, which is an RDF URI reference, a literal 
 >        or a blank
 >      * node

BTW, the question above would not come up without review of the ODM
metamodel.  It gives a less ambiguous description of the above, which is
just text that doesn't have the detail of "must", and "at least one",
etc.

This is another reasong it is critical to have community-wide agreement
on the OWL and RDF metamodels, rather than multiple ones from multiple
standards bodies.  We won't get to that agreement by ignoring each
other's metamodels.  Issue 82 was worded specifically for harmonization,
rather than divorce.  This is a perfect time to do it, before
finalization of the ODM and recommendation of OWL 1.1.

Conrad
Received on Friday, 30 November 2007 17:13:45 GMT

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