- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 12:58:50 +0000
- To: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
ISSUE-65 reads as "excessive duplication of vocabulary" and
specifically:
"""The member submission documents seem to replace a good many
properties from OWL 1.0 with three properties in OWL 1.1. (The old
version, and two new versions, one for data properties, and one for
object properties)"""
But now I realize that I don't understand this. In particular I don't
understand how this is supposed to be an issue against the RDF
serialization. What properties are duplicated? How many is a "good
many"? I see some "Classes" duplicated (e.g., ObjectRestriction and
DataRestriction), but someValueFrom is someValuesFrom. maxCardinality
is maxCardinality.
In the *structural specification* there are typed quantifiers, but
the quantifiers are not "properties" in the functional syntax.
Jeremy, could you clarify the degree of excess and whether you were
complaining about the functional syntax or the rdf serialization?
(In general, there's a choice in the functional syntax between
disambiguating by typing the constuctor or the arguments, e.g., either:
(1) DataPropertyDomain(:someProperty, :SomeDatatype)
Is unambiguous, but so is:
(2) Domain(DataProperty(:someProperty), Datatype(:SomeDatatype))
I think in the functional syntax I prefer the former (for writing). I
think in the xml syntax we ended up with *both*. Ah yes:
<EquivalentObjectProperties>
<ObjectProperty owl11xml:URI="#eats"/>
<InverseObjectProperty>
<ObjectProperty owl11xml:URI="#eaten_by"/>
<InverseObjectProperty>
<EquivalentObjectProperties>
But that's not necessary, You could eliminate the typed quantifiers:
<EquivalentProperties>
<ObjectProperty owl11xml:URI="#eats"/>
<InverseProperty>
<ObjectProperty owl11xml:URI="#eaten_by"/>
<InverseProperty>
<EquivalentProperties>
Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:59:00 UTC