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

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 06:23:53 -0400
Message-Id: <E2637F9D-4B43-4BC1-9909-1A26114CD019@gmail.com>
Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

As I read it, the validity is still only for imports closure.  
Specifically, 4.9.3 in the syntax document:

"In OWL 2 there is no requirement that a declaration for an entity  
must physically precede the entity's usage in ontology documents;  
furthermore, declarations for entities can be located in imported  
ontologies and imports are allowed to be cyclic."

and  Section 3.3 of the mapping document
"The set AllDecl(O) of all declarations is computed by taking the  
union of the set Decl(O), the sets Decl(O') for each ontology O'  
imported (directly or indirectly) into O, and the declarations for  
built-in entities from Table 2 of the OWL 2 Specification [OWL 2  
Specification]. The declarations in AllDecl(O) are checked for typing  
constraints, as specified in Section 4.9.1 of the OWL 2 Specification  
[OWL 2 Specification]. If the constraints are not satisfied, the  
graph G is rejected as syntactically incorrect."

However, syntax 4.9 says: "All entities apart from datatypes can, and  
sometimes even must, be declared in an OWL 2 ontology."   In order  
that it agree with the above it should say:  "All entities apart from  
datatypes can, and sometimes even must, be declared in the imports  
closure of an OWL 2 ontology."


-Alan

On May 7, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest
>
>> On May 7, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> It turns out that in OWL 1 the validity of RDF graphs as OWL DL
>>> ontologies in RDF graph form was only determined for imports  
>>> closures.
>>> *This is a bad thing.* The agreed-on situation in OWL 2 is much
>>> better.
>>
>>
>> Which agreed-up situation are you referring to? I was unaware that  
>> this
>> was a resolved issue.
>>
>> -Alan
>
>> 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
Received on Sunday, 18 May 2008 10:24:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 18 May 2008 10:24:39 GMT