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

RE: proposal to close ISSUE-102

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:52:53 -0000
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000801c884f0$01c69c70$d012a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

As for your first question, note that no OWL 1.1 ontology can consist solely of a property: ontologies consist of axioms, so there
is no way for an ontology to contain an entity directly. An ontology can contain a declaration axiom for a property. Then, the
translation of such an ontology into RDF would generate RDF triples.

As for your second question, the graph can be translated into an OWL 1.1 ontology; however, the result of the translation is empty.
rdf:type triples are used in the translation only as hint for disambiguating types of things; they do not contribute to axioms in
the ontology. The proper way to put a triple into an (RDF) ontology is to declare it (in a declaration axiom).

I've explained all of this my three rather long e-mails that I've sent out quite some time ago:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0184.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0185.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Dec/0186.html




BTW, I fully support Peter's proposal for resolution of ISSUE-102, with an amendment to also update the grammar to use the
annotationProperty nonterminal instead of annotationURI and to change the diagrams and the XML serialization accordingly. If
everybody agrees, I can change the spec over the weekend.

Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
> Sent: 13 March 2008 05:48
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: proposal to close ISSUE-102
> 
> 
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I suppose this is a consequence of punning, but I notice now that
> ontologies consisting solely of "annotationProperty(:foo)" would not
> generate any triple. (actually this seems to be the same for
> otherwise unused object and datatype properties too).
> 
> Also, can an RDF graph with only the triple:   x rdf:Type (Annotation|
> Datatype|Object)Property be translated into an OWL1.1 ontology?
> 
> -Alan
> 
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 2:52 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > As I mentioned in the teleconference today, I propose to close
> > ISSUE-102
> > by allowing annotation properties as entities.  This allows
> > annotations
> > on them (via entity annotations) with no other change.  It also allows
> > declaration of annotation properties (but I see very little use for
> > this).  It would also not preclude any further improvements in the
> > annotation situation.
> >
> > The changes would be:
> >
> > 1/ In Syntax:
> >
> > entity := datatype | owlClass | objectProperty | dataProperty |
> > annotationProperty | individual
> > annotationProperty := 'annotationProperty' '('
> > annotationPropertyURI ')'
> >
> > 2/ In Semantics:
> >
> > no change
> >
> > 3/ In RDF Mapping:
> >
> > 	mapping
> >
> > 	EntityAnnotation(AnnotationProperty(aID) Annotation(apID1 ct1) ...
> > Annotation(apIDn ctn))
> > 		T(aID) T(apIDi) T(cti) 1 = i = n
> > 	Declaration(AnnotationProperty(iID))
> > 		T(iID) owl11:declaredAs owl:AnnotationProperty
> >
> > 	reverse mapping
> >
> > 	!x !yi cti for 1 = i = n { owl:AnnotationProperty ? Type(x)
> > and OnlyAP(yi) = true for 1 = i = }
> > 		EntityAnnotation( AnnotationProperty(x) Annotation( y1 ct1 ) ...
> > Annotation( yn ctn ) )
> > 	T(iID) owl11:declaredAs owl:AnnotationProperty
> > 		Declaration(AnnotationProperty(iID))
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > Bell Labs Research
> 
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 09:54:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 March 2008 09:54:23 GMT