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

Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:08:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20071023.100821.35910982.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.rpi.edu
Cc: Ian.Horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk, jjc@hpl.hp.com, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:17:02 -0400

> 
> 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.  

Do you mean

owl:AnnotationProperty
owl:Class
owl:DataRange
owl:Datatype
owl:DatatypeProperty
owl:FunctionalDataProperty
owl:FunctionalProperty
owl:FunctionalPropety
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
owl:ObjectProperty
owl:Ontology
owl:Restriction
owl:SymmetricProperty
owl:TransitiveProperty
owl:allValuesFrom
owl:cardinality
owl:complementOf
owl:differentFrom
owl:disjointWith
owl:equivalentClass
owl:equivalentProperty
owl:hasValue
owl:imports
owl:intersectionOf
owl:inverseOf
owl:maxCardinality
owl:minCardinality
owl:onProperty
owl:oneOf
owl:sameAs
owl:someValuesFrom
owl:unionOf

which I just generated using a few simple Unix tools?  I don't think
that any of these are syntactic sugar.  (Note that the above list
exposes what is almost certainly a typo in the RDF Mapping document).

By the way, doing the same on OWL S&AS results in 

owl:AllDifferent
owl:AnnotationProperty
owl:Class
owl:DataRange
owl:DatatypeProperty
owl:DeprecatedClass
owl:DeprecatedProperty
owl:FunctionalProperty
owl:IndividualProperty
owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
owl:Nothing
owl:ObjectProperty
owl:Ontology
owl:OntologyProperty
owl:Restriction
owl:Symmetric
owl:SymmetricProperty
owl:Thing
owl:TransitiveProperty
owl:allValuesFrom
owl:backwardCompatibleWith
owl:cardinality
owl:complementOf
owl:differentFrom
owl:disjointWith
owl:distinctMembers
owl:equivalentClass
owl:equivalentProperty
owl:equivalentTo
owl:hasValue
owl:imports
owl:incompatibleWith
owl:intersectionOf
owl:inverseOf
owl:maxCardinality
owl:minCardinality
owl:onProperty
owl:oneOf
owl:priorVersion
owl:sameAs
owl:sameIndividualAs
owl:someValuesFrom
owl:unionOf
owl:versionInfo


I'll work up an analysis of the difference shortly.

> 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, 

Well, if your OWL is in RDF form and it is missing typing, then it is
not in OWL DL.  

> 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.  

According to the RDF Mapping document "The RDF syntax of OWL 1.1 is
backwards-compatible with OWL DL, this is, every OWL DL ontology in RDF
is a valid OWL 1.1 ontology", so the mapping apparently isn't that
difficult.  (I don't know whether I believe this claim.)

> 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?  

Protege, for sure.

> 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

peter
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 14:19:10 GMT

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