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: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:03:51 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080822.070351.199089653.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

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 22:00:43 -0400

> On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:53 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> > Further, I expect that almost all RDF graphs that contain
> >
> > 	ex:foo rdf:type rdf:Property
> >
> > will also use ex:foo *as* a property, perhaps like
> >
> > 	ex:subject ex:foo ex:object
> >
> > The proposed change would not result in graphs like this being
> > acceptable OWL 2 DL.
 
> If there is another declaration somewhere else in the imports closure
> that declares foo as an ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty, or
> AnnotationProperty, then this graph will be acceptable. That is the
> expected use case. 

So the graph has to
1/ use the OWL vocabulary (owl:imports, at least)
2/ use a property in a way acceptable to OWL (e.g., only object values)
3/ have "incorrect" typing (e.g.., rdf:Property instead of owl:ObjectProperty)
4/ import another graph that fixes up the typing
I don't think that this is a strong use case.

[...]

> Alan

peter
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 11:05:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 August 2008 11:06:01 GMT