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

RE: ACTION-103 are all OWL 1.0 ontologies representable in RDF

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:36:49 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0803153@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
[related to ISSUE-100]

Hi Peter!

Here is a concrete example expression to check my understanding:


  Class(http://example.org#foo partial 
                    value(http://example.org#foo) ) )

My questions:

(A) Is this expression syntactically valid in OWL-1.0 Abstract Syntax?

(B) Is this expression transformable to RDF by means of the OWL-1.0 RDF

(C) Is this expression a legal OWL-1.0-DL ontology?


>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. 
>Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 7:41 PM
>To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
>Subject: ACTION-103 are all OWL 1.0 ontologies representable in RDF
>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

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 Wednesday, 12 March 2008 20:37:03 UTC

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