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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:17:02 -0400
Message-Id: <67EB8D04-1532-46D9-9C77-13AA6991011C@cs.rpi.edu>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ian Horrocks <Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

One thing what would help me a lot, and maybe reduce some of my  
confusion would be if there was a single table somewhere of all the  
vocabulary terms that will now be in OWL, perhaps with a * as to  
which ones are syntactic sugar.  As far as I can tell from the  
current document, most of my existing OWL would be no longer DL,  
since it lacks type information, and there'd be a lot of new  
vocabulary items to learn to fix it -- but I can't really evaluate  
this because it is so difficult to map from the new syntax to the  
old.  There are 10s of thousands of OWL documents out in the world,  
I'd like to try to figure out the effort to migrate and this would help
   Could this be done automagically?  Would a "convert to OWL11"  
program be possible - again, this is because I'm confused for a lot  
of these predicates as to whether they are necessary or just useful  
to implementors (but ignorable my many users).
  Another thing that would help, apparently several of the reasoners  
(Pellet, Fact+, etc.) now handle OWL11 - do any of the editors?  Does  
Topbraid?  Having a tool we could use to create owl11 documents would  
be helpful for exploring the new language -- I'm teaching an OWL  
course this term, would love to introduce 1.1, but frankly, I still  
cannot figure out a lot of it from the documents - the concepts are  
clear, but not the realization (in the non-technical sense of the word)
  -JH



On Oct 23, 2007, at 6:49 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

>
> The motivation for properties such as subObjectPropertyOf is not  
> related to punning. The idea is to facilitate parsing/species  
> validation by enforcing strong typing. For example, it is illegal  
> in OWL DL for a datatype property to be a subProperty of an object  
> property, but when parsing a <P subPropertyOf S> triple, the types  
> of P and S may not be known. As a result, not only will a decision  
> on the species of the ontology need to be postponed, but it becomes  
> dependent on a (relatively) complex and non-local condition, i.e.,  
> that P and S are either both datatype properties or both object  
> properties.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2007, at 11:22, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think Jim's example about subObjectPropertyOf is compelling.
>>
>> In essence, I don't think we can publish a meaningful and helpful  
>> RDF Mapping document until we have decided whether or not we  
>> accept the 'punning' design in the member submission.
>>
>> I think this is one of the features of OWL 1.1 that causes the  
>> greatest unease with the HP developers. As I understand the  
>> design, language terms like subObjectPropertyOf are largely  
>> motivated by the punning design.
>>
>> A further possible motivation is that in OWL 1.0, at I think  
>> mainly my request, one design choice is that the triples version  
>> of OWL DL is strongly typed, in the sense that (nearly) every URI  
>> and blank node is required to have an rdf:type triple. Many of the  
>> required type declarations are unnecessary, and it may be a better  
>> design to allow unnecessary ones to be omitted. However, I think  
>> that the explosion of terms in the member of submission is  
>> unfortuante, and should be avoided.
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 13:20:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:13:26 GMT