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

Re: One comment on RDF mapping [related to ISSUE 67 and ISSUE 81]

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:21:08 -0400
Message-Id: <2E038DBA-C753-4038-BB0C-A46CCFB942A5@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>, Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Can this not be resolved without compromising monotonicity?

Assume we always serialize the s p o.

In the case of an axiom that has no annotation we proceed as documented.
In the case where we have only an axiom with annotation we proceed as  
documented, except that we add the s p o triple)
In the case where there are both we add an annotation that says:  
"There is an unnannotated version of this axiom".


On Jun 11, 2008, at 11:42 AM, Alan Wu wrote:

>> One concern of mine was the reverse mapping of axioms: if you find  
>> both the nonreified and the reified and annotated axiom, you
>> don't know what the original ontology was. Well, here is a  
>> possible way to handle this:
>> 1. We modify the forward mapping such that, if an ontology O  
>> contains both a nonannotated axiom ax and an annotated axiom ax',  
>> then we serialize the following:
>> (a) the nonreified version of ax
>> (b) the reified version of both ax and ax'
>> 2. We modify the backward mapping such that, if an RDF graph  
>> contains both a nonreified version of the axiom ax and a reified  
>> version ax', then only ax' is kept.
>> In this way, the axiom generated in (a) can be used for the  
>> semantics. The axioms generated in (b), however, would reflect the  
>> actual structure of the ontology.
>> A slight problem might be that the reverse mapping is  
>> nonmonotonic. I could live with that; however, I don't know  
>> whether other people can.
>> Regards,
Received on Wednesday, 11 June 2008 17:21:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC