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

Re: ISSUE-100 (rdfall): Should there be valid OWL ontologies that can not be expressed in RDF

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 15:23:56 +0000
Message-Id: <FD15CE4E-3F99-4057-9EC2-0B13444F8271@cs.man.ac.uk>
To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On 7 Mar 2008, at 15:09, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> ISSUE-100 (rdfall): Should there be valid OWL ontologies that can  
> not be expressed in RDF
>
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/
>
> Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
> On product:
>
> There are apparently some OWL 1.0 ontologies that are not  
> expressible in RDF. This comes as a surprise to some, and I  
> initially thought it a bug. So the working group should resolve  
> whether it is a design principle of OWL that all OWL ontologies can  
> be expressed in RDF, or not.

Doesn't this confuse RDF with RDF/XML? RDF/XML cannot express all RDF  
graphs. Some of those graphs are OWL DL ontologies. Many more are OWL  
Full (and not OWL DL) ontologies. These can be expressed in RDF  
(evidently) but not in RDF/XML. OWL mappings to RDF (and RDF based  
semantics) have traditionally been defined in terms of *RDF graphs*,  
not RDF/XML. You get to an RDF/XML representation only indirectly  
(i.e., via an RDF graph).

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 15:21:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 March 2008 15:21:55 GMT