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

ACTION-103 are all OWL 1.0 ontologies representable in RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:41:11 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080312.144111.62381981.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Oops - ACTION-103

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: ACTION-103 are all OWL 1.0 ontologies representable in RDF
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:35:40 -0400 (EDT)

> Executive Summary:  YES
> Non-executive Summary:  yes, with a caveat
> Actual situation: same as in OWL 1.1
> 
> Recall that an OWL 1.0 ontology has a separated vocabulary if 
> 1/ each URI reference in it is at most one of a class ID, a datatype ID,
>    an individual ID, an individual-valued property ID, a data-valued
>    property ID, an annotation property ID, an ontology property ID, or
>    an ontology ID; 
> 2/ it doesn't use any disallowed vocabulary (e.g., owl:inverseOf,
>    rdf:type) in the wrong way; and 
> 3/ it doesn't use the built-in names (e.g., owl:thing) in the wrong way.
> 
> In OWL 1.0 every OWL DL ontology can be expressed in the abstract syntax
> and also as an RDF graph, via the transformation in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/semantics-all.html#4.1 (which does
> not depend on a separated vocabulary).  However, such RDF graphs are not
> "OWL DL ontologies in RDF graph form" because these must have a
> separated vocabulary.  The OWL DL and OWL Full semantics can (and likely
> do) diverge on these these RDF graphs (note that Theorems 1 and 2 in
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/semantics-all.html#5.4 do not apply
> to them).
> 
> The situation in OWL 1.1 as I envision it would be the same.  OWL 1.1
> ontologies that do not have a separated vocabulary can be translated
> into RDF graph form, but their Full semantics may (and is likely to)
> diverge from their DL semantics.
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:43:47 GMT