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: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:56:01 -0400
Message-Id: <3E4F0273-2E04-4220-8847-20A63413FE7C@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
On Aug 22, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> Both the description of the issue
>   http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137
> and the previous use case
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0225.html
> are concerned with fixing up the importing graph.

Hi Peter,

I understand your example now, apologies for the confusion. Just to  
clarify, my concern was that it be possible to have the rdfs:Class  
and owl:Class in separate documents, and the A,B example I provided  
in the issue was one case of that.

Does the solution you propose not work the other way around? Namely  
in the other example I gave:

Document at ex:ontology:
	ex:foo rdf:type rdf:Property
	ex:subject ex:foo ex:object

Document at ex:cleanup
Ontology(ex:cleanup
     Import(ex:ontology)	
     Declaration(ObjectProperty(ex:foo))

Would the reverse mapping, after the change, result in there being an  
error when ex:cleanup is parsed (and hence ex:ontology is parsed?).

My understanding is that without the change ex:ontology would be  
syntactically invalid, but if ex:ontology was the single triple

Document at ex:ontology:
	ex:subject ex:foo ex:object

it would be valid.

-Alan


-Alan
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 17:56:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 August 2008 17:56:50 GMT