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

RE: nonmon mapping and punning

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 10:22:54 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0751823@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: "Web Ontology Language ((OWL)) Working Group WG" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Hi Bijan!

Bijan Parsia wrote on March 06, 2008:

>On Mar 4, 2008, at 5:31 PM, Michael Schneider wrote:
>> [related to ISSUE-68]
>> I don't think that Jeremy really meant that it is technically  
>> impossible,
>> but more that it doesn't match the general concepts behind Jena,  
>> which is an
>> RDF framework after all.
>Which has specific support for specifically this sort of feature.  
>This is the part I don't understand.
>Michael...I'm sorry, but I don't quite see what all that had to do  
>with the reactive event framework. In particular, I don't quite see  
>why you detoured into the "OWL View" part of Jena.

Jena is only an example for an existing RDF-based system which will have to deal with the basic problem I was talking about. The real issue I see is with combining OWL-1.1-DL ontologies which are represented in RDF. The combination of ontologies becomes, for example, relevant when working with imports.

If I have two OWL ontologies given in RDF syntax, and I want to combine them into a single ontology, then I would expect that I can achieve this by simply building an RDF-merge from the two original ontologies. I would believe that, since the two OWL ontologies *look* like RDF, they should also be *usable* like RDF, at least at the *syntactical* level (I am not talking about semantics here). And since an RDF-merge is probably the most basic operation on RDF graphs, this would allow me to apply almost every available RDF framework to perform such a combination of OWL ontologies.

Currently, this simple approach does *not* work in order to combine two valid OWL-1.1-DL ontologies. Instead, I have to apply OWL specific knowledge to check and possibly manipulate the original RDF graphs before I can merge them. 

Note that I did *not* claim that this is a technical bug in the OWL-1.1-DL specification. I did also *not* claim that Jena or TBC cannot be adjusted to adequately combine OWL-1.1-DL ontologies. In fact, this is always technically possible by first inverse-mapping the two original ontologies to functional syntax, building the union of the two sets of axioms there, and then mapping the resulting functional syntax ontology back to RDF. But I fear that the missing option for simply RDF-merging two ontologies might have a negative effect on the general acceptance of OWL-1.1-DL in the Semantic Web.


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 Friday, 7 March 2008 09:23:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC