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 14:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080822.140421.240309700.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: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:56:01 -0400

> 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

I don't understand what you want to do.

Do you want to say that ex:ontology is a valid OWL 2 DL ontology?  It
isn't, and it isn't a valid OWL 1 DL ontology in RDF graph form either,
so there is no backward compatibility issue.

Further, the single-triple version of ex:ontology isn't a valid OWL 2 DL
ontology and neither is it a valid OWL 1 DL ontology.

peter
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 18:05:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 22 August 2008 18:05:31 GMT