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

Re: proposal to close ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:39:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080821.133911.178611565.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

I don't see anything in the issue record
  http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137 
that shows your repair or how to implement it.

peter


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: proposal to close ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:20:31 -0400

> I have suggested a repair recently. I proposed we implement it or say
> why we can't.
> The use case is RDF files that can be be profitably used if coupled with
> additional structure in an OWL file.
> Importing such files without repairing the mapping issue prevents this
> because such files (those that use rdfs:class where owl:class would
> suffice) would be syntactically invalid.
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Aug 21, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> >
> > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping
> introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
> > Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:13:24 -0400
> >
> >> I clarified in the issue description that A imports B.
> >> -Alan
> >>
> >> On Aug 2, 2008, at 10:02 PM, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> >>
> >>> ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces
> >>> incompatibility with OWL 1
> >>>
> >>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137
> >>>
> >>> Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
> >>> On product:
> >>>
> >>> In OWL 1 one could have Ontology A, B with
> >>>
> >>> A:  :foo rdf:type rdfs:Class
> >>> B:  :foo rdf:type owl:Class
> >>>
> >>> In OWL 2, A  would be rejected as syntactically invalid because no
> >>> part of the reverse mapping handles the single triple with
> rdfs:Class
> >>>
> >>> An analogous situation arises with rdf:Property
> >
> > This issue has been sitting for a while with no action.
> >
> > I propose that this issue be closed by noting the incompatibility.
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 17:40:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 August 2008 17:40:04 GMT