- From: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:56:11 -0400
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Alan, Sorry for the delay. What if the annotation itself is "There is an unnannotated version of this axiom" Thanks, Zhe Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > 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". > > -Alan > > > 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 Friday, 13 June 2008 01:58:58 UTC