W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Issue-104

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:06:49 -0400
Message-Id: <55E3E451-350B-4066-B3C6-8EDC19191DAD@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

Thanks Peter,

I remember the OWL 1 situation, but wasn't up to date on the current  
situation wrt OWL 2, which I now am.

I propose, then, that we resolved 104 reference to this mail, and by  
noting that the term "reserved vocabulary" is used in OWL 2, versus  
"disallowed vocabulary" in OWL 1.

BTW, is there any reason that the term "disallowed vocabulary" is not  
used in the OWL 2 spec, to make it easier to transition? If not, we  
should add a note to whatever our transition documentation noting the  
change.

-Alan

On Aug 12, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Issue-104
> Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:58:49 -0400
>
>> I am confused as to it's status. The issue is whether there is a
>> disallowed vocabulary. The notes have Michael saying there is, and  
>> I an
>> thinks there is. This would suggest that closing the issue means  
>> saying
>> that there is a disallowed vocabulary and a pointer to the  
>> appropriate
>> place in the spec. However, I don't understand Peter's comment
>> suggesting a break in backwards compatibility in this light.
>>
>>   I will review the current spec to find what Michael is referring
>> to. However a summary of current understand so as to verify we're
>> (including me) are all on the same page would help if someone  
>> happens to
>> have the time to write.
>>
>> -Alan
>
> A very quick and easy find on OWL S&AS results in:
>
> Definition: The disallowed vocabulary from RDF is rdf:type,
> rdf:Property, rdf:nil, rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdfs:domain,
> rdfs:range, rdfs:Resource, rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Class, rdfs:subClassOf,
> rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:member, rdfs:Container and
> rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. The disallowed vocabulary from  
> OWL is
> owl:AllDifferent, owl:allValuesFrom, owl:AnnotationProperty,
> owl:cardinality, owl:Class, owl:complementOf, owl:DataRange,
> owl:DatatypeProperty, owl:DeprecatedClass, owl:DeprecatedProperty,
> owl:differentFrom, owl:disjointWith, owl:distinctMembers,
> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty, owl:FunctionalProperty,
> owl:hasValue, owl:intersectionOf, owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
> owl:inverseOf, owl:maxCardinality, owl:minCardinality,
> owl:ObjectProperty, owl:oneOf, owl:onProperty, owl:Ontology,
> owl:OntologyProperty, owl:Restriction, owl:sameAs, owl:someValuesFrom,
> owl:SymmetricProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty, and owl:unionOf. The
> disallowed vocabulary is the union of the disallowed vocabulary  
> from RDF
> and the disallowed vocabulary from OWL.
>
> The change would be from listing the disallowed vocabulary in the RDF,
> RDFS, XSD, and OWL vocabulary spaces and allowing all other to
> effectively listing the allowed vocabulary from these spaces and
> disallowing all other.  So, for example, owl:class was allowed in  
> OWL 1
> but would not be allowed under this proposal.
>
> peter
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 18:07:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 August 2008 18:07:42 GMT