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

RE: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with roundtripping when going from functional-style syntax into RDF and back

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:16:43 -0000
To: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <012701c85df4$7d17e320$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

At the telecon on the 23rd of January 2008, some people suggested that this issue should be discussed in a broader context of the
question whether roundtripping is a requirement.

To kick off that discussion, I really do believe it is. RDF/XML is the main syntax for OWL, and it is really strange to make it
incomplete w.r.t. the functional-style syntax and the structural specification. Here is why I believe this is important (copied from
my original e-mail):

> Ontology editors such as Protégé typically allow for n-ary constructs. Hence, it is likely that a
> user might enter an axiom such as (1) and save the ontology; after restarting the editor and
> loading the saved ontology, the user might be surprised that he gets new axioms. In fact, the new
> binary presentation might be quite inconvenient for users: they might have used an n-ary construct
> in order to have fewer axioms in the list of axioms that they work with.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: 23 January 2008 19:03
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: 'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'; public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with roundtripping when going from
> functional-style syntax into RDF and back
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 23, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Boris Motik wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > (In my e-mails I used OWL/RDF for "OWL ontologies encoded in RDF/
> > XML".)
> >
> > I'm not sure I understand how RDF/XML is different from RDF graphs:
> > I always thought that RDF/XML can be used to serialize each RDF
> > graph; thus, I saw them as being of the same expressive power.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-
> >> Schneider
> >> Sent: 23 January 2008 18:02
> >> To: boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> >> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with
> >> roundtripping when going from
> >> functional-style syntax into RDF and back
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Boris Motik" <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
> >> Subject: RE: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with
> >> roundtripping when going from
> >> functional-style syntax into RDF and back
> >> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 18:17:51 -0000
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Hello Peter,
> >>>
> >>> I am not sure I understand what you mean with (1) and (2): how does
> >>> round-tripping through OWL/RDF differ from roundtripping through
> >>   		 	 ^^^^^^^ RDF/XML?
> >>> RDF graphs?
> >>
> >> OWL/RDF and RDF graphs have differing expressive power, so round
> >> tripping through them can be different.
> >>
> >>
> >>> To make things clear, the type of roundtripping that this issue
> >>> talks
> >>> about is the following:
> >>>
> >>> OWL Functional Syntax -> RDF graph (or OWL/RDF) -> OWL Functional
> >>> Syntax
> >>
> >> Again, what is OWL/RDF?  If it is RDF/XML then it is different
> >> from RDF
> >> graphs.
> >>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> 	Boris
> >>
> >> peter
> >
> >
> >
> 
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 19:17:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 January 2008 19:17:32 GMT