- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:56:01 -0400
- To: Alan Wu <alan.wu@oracle.com>
- Cc: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 12, 2008, at 9:56 PM, Alan Wu wrote: > Alan, > > Sorry for the delay. > > What if the annotation itself is "There is an unnannotated version > of this axiom" The string was just to say what I meant. There would need to be a reserved vocabulary term to indicate this. -Alan > > 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 08:56:43 UTC