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

Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:23:52 +0100
Message-Id: <EDEEEBC4-B4B5-4204-AC87-A7ABE1566552@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

On 11 Jun 2008, at 14:16, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Boris,
>> I just want to flag an issue that may come up later in comments:  
>> on practical sense your proposal has a downside for RDF users.  
>> Indeed, the two major serializations formats, ie, RDF/XML and  
>> Turtle, have syntactic shorthands for RDF Lists, and these would  
>> not be valid for the owl version of those.
>
> Actually, to be more precise: in RDF/XML there is a shorthand when  
> rdf:next is an object property. When the list elements are  
> literals, then the list has to be spelled out...
>
> Turtle's shorthand works in all cases.

Just out of curiosity, would you find it reasonable to reserve the  
rdf vocab (in data) to object properties and just add an owl for  
distinguishing data properties?

(I'll note that we're in this pickle due to removing punning on  
object and data properties :()

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:21:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:21:43 GMT