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

Action-131: Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:20:23 -0400
Message-Id: <9A149512-7911-4DA7-B74B-9CEC23879636@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>

Hi Boris,

Could you please comment on this, as it is relevant to Action-131?

Thanks,
Alan

On May 18, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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 Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:21:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:21:07 GMT