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

Re: rdf:list vocabulary

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080528.053640.163170864.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
Cc: ivan@w3.org, public-owl-wg@w3.org

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: rdf:list vocabulary
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:10 -0400

> 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

Yes, that is one of the questions involved.

I await someone (else) showing that this is not a problem.


> > 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
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 09:44:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:04 UTC