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

Re: rdf:list vocabulary

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:14:07 -0400
Message-Id: <EF89B649-6A64-4DB3-B85E-0218D35A4FCD@gmail.com>
Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

Well, for instance if it sees any of the new list vocabulary or any  
new OWL2 vocabulary, then it isn't OWL 1.
Like I said, the question to be evaluated, if others thing this is  
worth considering, is whether there are any ambiguous cases.
Perhaps the serialization is arranged so that any OWL 2 ontology that  
uses rdf:list as not-syntax, includes in its mapping at least one use  
of replacement for rdf:list.

-Alan

On May 28, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

>
>
> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I am not sure I understand. If a system sees an OWL ontology in RDF/ 
> XML or Turtle, how does it know whether an rdf:List is part of the  
> syntax (a la OWL1) or part of the normal set of terms as you propose?
>
> Ivan
>
>> 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
>
> -- 
>
> 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 04:14:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 May 2008 04:14:56 GMT