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

RE: nonmon mapping and punning

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 13:54:27 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A07515E0@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Bijan!

>(I also want to point out that TopBraid Composer is Jena based and  
>claims OWL 1.1 support as of the Submission, I believe. Holger, the  
>TPC author, talks a lot about using triple oriented toolkits with OWL  
>and didn't mention this part of the mapping as a problem, IIRC  
>(pointers to places where he did are welcome). I take that as a weak,  
>defeasible existence proof that the mapping isn't radically at odds  
>with Jena.)

First, I don't believe that TBC deals with the conditional definitions in the FS-2-RDF mapping, i.e. the question on which condition which RDF syntax is produced from a given Functional Syntax expression. Being an RDF based tool, TBC does not have to care about the Functional Syntax at all, but simply needs to wait for the resulting RDF documents as its input.

Further, I don't know whether Jeremy's problem is an actual usecase for TBC. Jeremy talked in [1] about two RDF graphs which get merged. My example in [2] with imports is basically the same, *under the condition* that the imported ontologies get merged into a single ontology. AFAIK, TBC doesn't merge imported ontologies [FIXME!]. And off the top of my head, I don't know about any other usecase for merging of RDF graphs in TBC. 

But even if there are cases in which TBC merges RDF graphs, then TBC would probably do the right thing from an /RDF/ point of view. For example, from an RDF pov there is nothing wrong with the resulting RDF graph in my example [2]. The problem is rather that for such a merged RDF graph there might be no possible mapping to Functional Syntax. This, of course, means that the resulting RDF graph is not a valid OWL-1.1-DL ontology. I don't know whether TBC takes this into account, but I have my doubts.

For the question on punning: I could find a single thread in the TBC mailing list on punning [3]. Holger says:

  I am not sure how the OWL 1.1 notion of punning is different 
  from having multiple rdf:type triples in OWL Full. 
  [...]
  What the inference tools do with this information is 
  another question that you will need to try out.

>Cheers,
>Bijan.

Cheers,
Michael

[1] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jan/0277.html>
[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Feb/0168.html>
[3] <http://groups.google.com/group/topbraid-composer-users/browse_thread/thread/10676ee07b215c3d/009886b3cb38cbac>

--
Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555

FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus


Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 12:54:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 March 2008 12:54:49 GMT