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

Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 05:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080508.055725.41119402.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: schneid@fzi.de
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Subject: RE: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest
Date: Thu, 8 May 2008 10:44:30 +0200

> Peter F. Patel-Schneider answered to Alan Ruttenberg:
> 
> >> On May 7, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

[...]

> >>From F2F2 minutes:
> >
> >RESOLVED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved,
> >as per Boris' proposal
> >(http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to
> >include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and
> >ObjectProperties.
> >
> >The general situation in OWL 2 dates back to the OWL 1.1 member
> >submission, but it had to be modified due to issues raised with respect
> >to duplication of vocabulary.
> >
> >
> >peter
> 
> (A first testcase for my ACTION-147 to review the implementation of
> Boris'  proposal! :))
> 
> From slide 3 of the proposal:
> 
>   If a URI u is used as an object property
>   in an ontology O then the import closure of O...
> 
>     ... must contain a declaration saying that
>     u is an object property
> 
>     ... must not contain a declaration saying that
>     u is a data or an annotation property
> 
> And slide 4 modifies the grammar of the functional syntax to take these 
> import-closure-wide declarations of properties into account.
 
> So without regarding the import closure, it is not possible to tell
> whether an OWL 2 DL ontology -- in particular one in RDF graph form --
> is valid or not,
 
> right?
> 
> Michael

Correct.   This is a known side effect of reducing the vocabulary used
in the RDF transform.  

Of course, if an OWL 2 ontology in RDF graph form imports another
ontology that does something like mess with the RDF vocabulary, then the
combination still messes with the RDF vocabulary, so in some sense there
is no way to get away from looking at the imported ontologies.

peter
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 09:59:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 May 2008 09:59:11 GMT