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

Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-12

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:36:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080324.183655.180413649.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal to close ISSUE-12
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:35:39 -0400 (EDT)

> 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.

Further, restrictions fall under the second point, so they will not
generate duplicate annotations.

> > Cheers,
> > Michael

peter
Received on Monday, 24 March 2008 22:42:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 24 March 2008 22:42:53 GMT