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

Re: Serialization issues

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:24:08 +0100
Message-Id: <7298AD89-4720-4F66-B6B6-749510DABD61@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>

On 26 Oct 2007, at 18:09, Elisa F. Kendall wrote:

> Hi,
>
> There are some things that we can do in the metamodel to specify  
> ordering - I'll need to investigate what is supported in OCL, as it  
> would be better, given that you want it to be optional, to provide  
> optional ordering constraints rather than creating mandatory  
> ordering requirements on the diagrams themselves.
>
> In the ODM metamodels for RDF and OWL 1.0, we separate the notion  
> of a statement occuring in a graph from that same statement  
> occurring in a particular document; RDF statements can be ordered  
> within the document(s) that they occur in.  This isn't a constraint  
> on the core RDF metamodel, but in a separate, optional package  
> where we defined notions such as namespaces, URIs, documents, etc.   
> See section 10.7 in [1] for details.  Jeremy and Dave Reynolds  
> helped us tease out the relationship between graphs and documents,  
> which may be useful for this discussion.
>
> We should think about whether you want to impose ordering  
> (optionally) on all possible concrete syntaxes or only in some cases

As I discussed. I think we have to make it optional, i.e., give a  
"canonical RDF/XML", at least for RDF/XML.

> - say, for example, yes if RDF/XML, no if N3.  I'm not advocating  
> either way, but the decision to impose ordering, even optionally,  
> if done in the abstract syntax, would apply to all potential  
> concrete syntaxes.
[snip]

No, since in the mapping you could relax things. This, in fact,  
happens in the current RDF to Abstract/Functional syntax. In that  
case *parts* of axioms can be scattered in the RDF that cannot be  
scattered in the Functional syntax. Which way you do this is merely a  
matter of specification taste.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 17:22:55 GMT

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