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

Re: rdf:list vocabulary

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:10 -0400
Message-Id: <05DFFB2D-C383-400E-9AE5-7337FFCBEB22@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>


On May 27, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Wouldn't that affect backward compatibility? What would happen to  
> existing OWL1 ontologies serialized in RDF?

The reverse mapping would have to be such that the rdf:list  
vocabulary was mapped to the new vocabulary for OWL 1 ontologies.
The question would be whether there were any ontologies that could  
ambiguously be valid OWL 2 ontologies that used the rdf:list  
vocabulary in axioms and at the same time be owl 1 ontologies that  
used the list vocabulary as syntax.

-Alan

>
> Ivan
>
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> I'm wondering whether we should consider removing our reliance on  
>> rdf:list vocabulary for the serialization of OWL and instead make  
>> it available for modeling in OWL. This would enable a class of RDF  
>> that is currently inaccessible for reasoning in OWL to be  
>> productively used. The downside is that we lose some the  
>> (relative) conciseness of using rdf:parsetype=collection in our  
>> RDF serializations.
>> Given the choice of making the RDF more compact, versus making  
>> more native RDF possible to reason over using OWL, I think I'd  
>> lean to the latter. After all, we will have the OWL XML syntax if  
>> length of serialization is our primary concern.
>> Thoughts?
>> -Alan
>
> -- 
>
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 03:57:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 03:57:03 GMT