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

Re: Agenda for Washington F2F

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:03:54 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080323.170354.248123486.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

The current agenda for the Washing F2F lists a bunch of issues as being
involved with the RDF Mapping.  However, the statements of some of these
issues do not mention the RDF mapping and are not closely related to it.
I thus suggest that the first session on Day 1 be instead devoted to
those issues on the RDF mapping issue list that are not related to the
RDF mapping.

These issues are:


ISSUE-3 anonymous individuals
ACCEPTED: Lack of anonymous individuals

Description:

    2007-10-24 18:58:22: From:
    http://code.google.com/p/owl1-1/issues/detail?id=21&can=1

    Reported by dav...@hp.com, Apr 05, 2007

    In OWL/1.0 it was possible to play with anonymous individuals,
    identified
    by their type(s) and the values of their properties. This feature
    seems to
    be missing from OWL/1.1.

    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007AprJun/0000.html


ISSUE-17 role punning
ACCEPTED: Object and datatype role punning

Description:

    Reported by jlc415, Jun 11, 2007

    The current model-theoretic semantics document allows punning
    between all signature elements, including punning between object and
    datatype role names.

    It is extremely difficult to imagine a case in which punning between
    different types of roles would be anything other than user
    error. Furthermore, this semantic model is incompatible with that of
    OWL-DL. Under OWL-DL a role name was required to be given a single
    interpretation as object or datatype across all use in the ontology;
    under OWL 1.1 this is no longer the case.


ISSUE-19 declarations-p
ACCEPTED: Resolve whether to include declarations

Description:

    Reported by alanruttenberg, Aug 08, 2007
    Pro: 
      Allows for detecting some kinds of errors
      Allows expression of intention in otherwise ambiguous cases
    Con:
      Some duplication of information
      Uncertain impact
      Not a lot of experience with it

    (there may be others)

    See:
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JanMar/thread.html#msg80
    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-dev/2007JulSep/thread.html#msg27


ISSUE-72 Annotation Semantics
ACCEPTED: lack of annotation semantics is not backwardly compatible

Description:

    The semantics doc explicitly gives no semantics to annotations.

    This is not backwardly compatible with OWL 1.0 in which annotations
    have the RDFS semantics


ISSUE-90 class and property deprecation
ACCEPTED: Spec lacks 'Deprecated' marker for classes, properties and
	  datatypes (OWL 1.0 compatibility)

Description:

    The OWL 1.0 specification provides a mechanism for deprecating
    classes, properties and datatypes (owl:DeprecatedClass,
    owl:DeprecatedProperty). See the OWL 1.0 Abstract Syntax document,
    section 2.3 [1] and the wiki page on ontology versions [2].

    This is absent in the OWL 1.1 syntax doc [3]

    NOTE: this is a little used feature of OWL 1.0 (tools don't support
    it, or are agnostic)


    [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/syntax.html#2.3
    [2] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Ontology_Versions
    [3] http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax


ISSUE-46 and ISSUE-100 could also be on this list, as they are really
about the expressive power of OWL DL, not about any particular mapping
into RDF.



Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Sunday, 23 March 2008 21:09:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 23 March 2008 21:09:28 GMT