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: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:52:07 -0400
Message-Id: <F947E438-052A-400A-890B-929578774BE9@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>
> 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.

You are right, I suggested the fix in previous emails and at the TC
http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/meeting/2008-08-13#line0510

I've added the pointers to the issue record.

The proposal was to modify the reverse mapping rules in table 4

In each of the "If G contains this pattern" where there are two  
triples listed and one of them is either
x rdf:type rdfs:Class  or x rdf:type rdfs:Property, remove the other  
triple. This effects all the entries but the first and last.

For example:

If G contains: rdf:type owl:InverseFunctionalProperty. x rdf:type  
rdf:Property
Then delete from G:  x rdf:type rdf:Property

would change to:

If G contains:  x rdf:type rdf:Property
Then delete from G:  x rdf:type rdf:Property

-Alan


On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> 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 23:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 August 2008 23:52:53 GMT