Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-12

From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Proposal to close ISSUE-12
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:07:43 +0100

> Hi Peter!
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org 
> >[mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. 
> >Patel-Schneider
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:32 AM
> >To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> >Subject: Proposal to close ISSUE-12
> >
> >
> >ISSUE-12 points out that the mapping rules do not nicely handle most
> >axioms that generate multiple triples.
> >
> >I propose to close this issue by modifying the mapping rules (and the
> >reverse mapping) so that 
> >1/ Annotations on axioms that generate single triples are as before 
> >   e.g., ObjectPropertyDomain(Annotation(a "bar") r d) could become
> >   	 _:x rdf:type owl11:Axiom
> >	 _:x rdf:subject r
> >	 _:x rdf:predicate rdfs:domain
> >	 _:x rdf:object d
> >	 _:x a "bar"
> >2/ Annotations on axioms that generate a fresh blank node put the
> >   annotation on that blank node, as is done already for negative
> >   property assersions
> >   e.g.,  DisjointClasses(Annotation(a "bar") c1 c2 c3) becomes
> >   	  _:x rdf:type owl11:AllDisjointClasses
> >	  _:x owl11:members SEQ(c1 c2 c3)
> >	  _:x a "bar"
> >3/ Other annotations on axioms that generate multiple triples (e.g.,
> >   EquivalentObjectProperties) result in the triples being reified and
> >   each annotation attached to each of the reified triples.
> >
> >peter
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Point 3/ may produce a lot of duplication of information, in particular when
> owl:RestrictionS are involved.

Agreed, but I view this as the "least-bad" approach.

[...]

> Cheers,
> Michael

peter

Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 15:41:21 UTC