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: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:31:42 +0000
Message-ID: <47D15FDE.4090201@hpl.hp.com>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 7 March 2008 15:32:26 GMT