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

Re: nonmon mapping and punning

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2008 14:43:02 +0000
Message-Id: <8404F4EE-581D-4D17-A091-A65B93F6A6E1@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>

On 4 Mar 2008, at 12:54, Michael Schneider wrote:

> 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.)

Note that this is an aside :)

> 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.
[snip]

The nonmonotonicity of the mapping is independent of whether you are  
mapping from FS to RDF. I.e., if I have an ontology representing a  
pun free ontology as a set of triples, then add a statement which  
puns and object and data property, then I have to do some  
modification of the set of triples (i.e., delete someand add more).  
So, I thought that this was the problem. I don't see that it *is* a  
problem, since the event monitoring feature can handle it easily,  
afaict.

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 4 March 2008 14:41:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 March 2008 14:41:02 GMT