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

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

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 13:37:07 +0100
To: "'Alan Ruttenberg'" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "'OWL Working Group WG'" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003101c8bff6$607353d0$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

The definition of "declared" in Section 4.9.1 takes into account that the declaration can be physically located in one of the
importing ontologies. I understand, however, that this formal definition comes after the informal one at the beginning of Section
4.9. Therefore, I've changed the paragraph to this:

Each entity u used in an OWL 2 ontology O can, and sometimes even must, be declared in O; roughly speaking, this means that the
axiom closure of O must contain an appropriate declaration for u. A declaration for u in O serves two purposes: [...]


I hope that the paragraph now makes it clear that this is an intuitive definition; the proper definition is found later. Also, I
removed any reference to datatypes now: datatypes also have to be declared, but their declarations are implicitly always present.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Ruttenberg [mailto:alanruttenberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: 27 May 2008 13:20
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: OWL Working Group WG
> Subject: Action-131: Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest
> 
> 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 12:38:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:38:41 GMT