- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:31:42 +0000
- To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Bijan Parsia wrote: > > 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. > I tend to agree with Bijan; his analysis could suggest that we should reject the issue. OTOH I think the bar for rejecting issues, without discussion, should be very high, but I would certainly be prepared to concur with such a decision in this case. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 7 March 2008 15:32:25 UTC