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

Re: ISSUE-2 (allDisjoint-RDF): No syntax for AllDisjoint in RDF mapping

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:31:33 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20080114.133133.79129126.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Should we carry this to its ultimate conclusion and just map any construct
into a list that mirrors its structure in the functional syntax?

So a QCR ObjecMinCardinality(3 r C) would be mapped into something like (using
Turtle syntax)

(owl:objectMinCardinality 3 r C)

and an ontology like

Ontology(foo
  SubClassOf(C ObjectUnionOf(D ObjectIntersectionOf(E
	ObjectMinCardinality(3 r C)) DataMaxCardinality(5 F))))

would be mapped into the list

(owl:ontology foo
  (rdfs:subClassOf C (owl:objectUnionOf D
			(owl:objectIntersectionOf E
			   (owl:objectMinCardinality 3 r C))
		        (owl:dataMaxCardinality 5 F))))

or maybe (to address stating vs asserting) a triple with a list as its subject

(owl:ontologyContents
  (rdfs:subClassOf C (owl:objectUnionOf D
			(owl:objectIntersectionOf E
			   (owl:objectMinCardinality 3 r C))
		        (owl:dataMaxCardinality 5 F))))
	owl:ontology foo

This would certainly address the roundtripping issue.

peter

PS:  This is mostly, but not entirely, in jest.
Received on Monday, 14 January 2008 18:58:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 January 2008 18:58:46 GMT