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

Re: ISSUE-96 (OWL1.1 vocabulary names): OWL-1.1 vocabulary naming in RDF mapping is not consistent

From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:44:01 +0100
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <86860B0D-6CC4-4C9B-87CA-BCB2923EE175@uva.nl>
To: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>

Ah I now see the problem. The RDF mapping and Functional Syntax  
documents seem to differ on this issue. In the RDF mapping,  
owl11:disjointObjectProperties is indeed a relation between two  
properties, whereas the functional syntax states 'the  
disjointObjectProperties axiom takes a set of object properties and  
states that all properties from the set are pair-wise disjoint.'

It seems what is an intuitive name in the functional syntax, isn't in  
the other.

-Rinke


On 2 mrt 2008, at 17:33, Rinke Hoekstra wrote:

>
> Hi Michael,
>
> As far as I know, the names are intentional. The rationale is that  
> the range of e.g. owl11:subObjectPropertyOf is a property, whereas  
> the range of owl11:disjointObjectProperties is a *collection* of  
> properties (as with e.g. allDisjoint)
>
> -Rinke
>
> On 2 mrt 2008, at 15:49, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ISSUE-96 (OWL1.1 vocabulary names): OWL-1.1 vocabulary naming in  
>> RDF mapping is not consistent
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>>
>> Raised by: Michael Schneider
>> On product:
>>
>> In the RDF mapping, we have the following URIs:
>>
>> * owl11:subObjectPropertyOf
>> * owl11:equivalentObjectProperty
>> * owl11:disjointObjectProperties
>>
>> At least the names for the 2nd URI (singular) and 3rd URI (plural)  
>> will perhaps lead to confusion. I suggest to use names close to the  
>> existing names in OWL-1.0:
>>
>> * keep "owl11:subObjectPropertyOf", since there is  
>> "rdfs:subPropertyOf"
>>
>> * keep "owl11:equivalentObjectProperty", since there is  
>> "owl:equivalentProperty"
>>
>> * change "owl11:disjointObjectProperties" to
>>   * either "owl11:disjointObjectProperty" to match  
>> "owl:equivalentProperty"
>>   * or "owl11:dijointObjectPropertyWith" to match  
>> "owl:disjointWith" for classes
>>
>> The same changes will then have to be performed for data  
>> properties, too, of course.
>>
>> Michael Schneider
>>
>>
>>
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Drs. Rinke Hoekstra
>
> Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
> Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
> Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke
>
> Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
> University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
> 1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
> -----------------------------------------------
>
>
>

-----------------------------------------------
Drs. Rinke Hoekstra

Email: hoekstra@uva.nl    Skype:  rinkehoekstra
Phone: +31-20-5253499     Fax:   +31-20-5253495
Web:   http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke

Leibniz Center for Law,          Faculty of Law
University of Amsterdam,            PO Box 1030
1000 BA  Amsterdam,             The Netherlands
-----------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2008 16:44:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 2 March 2008 16:44:13 GMT