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

Well... You might think that the issue is only for complicated URIs like 
http://a.b.c/?qqq&www (which may indeed be a pathological case for a 
property name) but it is not. We (ie, W3C) had long discussions in the 
past few months with IPTC[1] who, for historical reasons, have a bunch 
of URI-s of the form http://a.b.c/123 (ie, with numerals at the end of 
the URI string), but they would like to use RDF & co for, eg, their 
definition of NewsML[2]. Ie, they may have very good reasons to use 
property names of this form in an ontology.

Ie: I would be cautious in introducing such restriction...

Ivan

[1] http://www.iptc.org
[2] http://www.newsml.org/pages/index.php

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 
> Would it be considered a problem to add to the syntax specification a 
> restriction that it is illegal to use property names that cannot be 
> turned into XML namespace-qualified names? This would, I think, solve 
> the tripping problem, i.e., would allow all OWL 1.1 ontologies in the 
> structural syntax to be serialisable in RDF/XML. Although this would in 
> principle introduce a backwards compatibility issue, I doubt that it 
> would cause any problem in practice (in practice all OWL ontologies use 
> RDF/XML serialisation).
> 
> If we can solve the tripping problem in this way, then we can come back 
> to the round-tripping problem.
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> On 23 Jan 2008, at 20:42, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
>>
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> 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 15:54:31 -0500
>>
>>> So
>>>
>>> DatatypeProperty(<http://example.com/9>)
>>> Individual(f:Dad type(owl:Thing) value(<http://example.com/9> "nine"))
>>>
>>> isn't round-trippable. However I never really thought of that as a
>>> round trip issue as much as a "trip" issue. You can't even get it in
>>> to RDF/XML never mind get it back in the same form.
>>
>> Which means that it is not round-trippable, which is a ...wait for it...
>> round-tripping problem.  (Otherwise, why not round-trip through COBOL?)
>>
>>> -Alan
>>
>> peter
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 2008, at 1:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not true.
>>>>
>>>> RDF/XML cannot encode arbitrary RDF graphs.  See
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-syntax-grammar/#section-Serialising
>>>> for more information.
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf