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

RE: Why has the RDF mapping conditional mapping rules? (ISSUE-68)

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 17:42:28 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A06C3087@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>, <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi again!

I hope that I did not produce more cofusion with my yesterday night's mail
then without posting it. :) There might simply be a misunderstanding on my
side, since I did not deal much with this question until now.

Perhaps, did I misunderstand the intention behind roundtripping in general,
and the backwards compatibility issue of the RDF mapping in special? Was it
the intention to get an OWL-1.0-DL ontology, whenever the functional syntax
in 1.1 "corresponds strongly" to some abstract syntax in 1.0? So that new
RDF vocabulary is used only when either a new 1.1 language construct is
used, or when punning is used? I think this would approximately amount to a
roundtripping the other way around than I thought, from 1.0/RDF to 1.1/FS
and back to 1.0/RDF. Was this the idea?

Cheers,
Michael

Bijan Parsia wrote:

>Bijan Parsia wrote:
>
>>On Feb 5, 2008, at 10:43 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>>[snip]
>>> But I do not understand what advantage have these 
>conditional rules  
>>> for
>>> backwards compatibility.
>>
>>Think roundtripping.
>
>Hm, I don't understand. Wouldn't roundtripping be even more 
>save without
>these conditional rules? (Apart from simplifying the RDF mapping.)
>
>>> I do not even understand where the FS-to-RDF
>>> mapping touches questions of backwards compatibility. Isn't 
>backwards
>>> compatibility only a relevant topic for the RDF-2-FS mapping [3] ?
>>
>>Even without precise roundtripping, you need to be able to 
>get from a  
>>FS ontology to an OWL 1.0 RDF/XML document
>>which means that, where  
>>possible, you need to reuse old constructs.
>
>Why that? I thought roundtripping is about getting from FS to 
>RDF (abstract
>data model, not some specific serialization!) and back again, receiving
>(more or less) exactly the original FS-style ontology. But even if
>roundtripping goes through RDF/XML, why does it have to be an OWL *1.0*
>RDF/XML document?
> 
>>The new constructs were
>>introduced to cope with ambiguity when you pun, so using them  
>>everywhere seems a bit harsh.
>
>But:
>
>  <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Oct/0171.html>
>
>>I wouldn't mind *encouraging* using the typed vocabulary everywhere,  
>>but I also suspect that people interested in doing that would 
>use the  
>>XML syntax.
>
>Personally, I am (and was from the beginning) in favour of the 
>new "typed"
>names - with or without punning. :)
>
>Cheers,
>Michael

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus


Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2008 16:42:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 6 February 2008 16:42:54 GMT