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

Re: RDF features in OWL 2

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 02:14:21 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0811032314p6476f402ld80fa16b1e39debc@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Elisa F. Kendall" <ekendall@sandsoft.com>
Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

I am wondering about whether it is wise to consider these disallowed
in OWL 2 DL, and hence making any RDF that uses them unusable in OWL
DL.

In the light of our resolution of issues 137 and 114, should use of
these vocabulary terms be allowed as long as there is sufficient
additional OWL declarations to make them usable in OWL DL?

-Alan

On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Elisa F. Kendall <ekendall@sandsoft.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Michael --
>
> That was our preliminary conclusion, but we wanted to confirm one last time,
> "just to make sure" :).
>
> Best,
>
> Elisa
>
>
> Michael Schneider wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I think Jie's question can easily be answered. Have a look in Section 2.3 of
> the Specification:
>
>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs_and_Namespaces>
>
> All the URIs asked for have an "rdf" namespace prefix, so they are reserved
> according to Table 2. And none of these URIs appear in Table 3 ("Reserved
> Vocabulary with Special Treatment"). So the answer is "not supported in OWL
> 2 DL" to all these URIs.
>
> The related (now closed) issue is ISSUE-104 ("dissallowed vocabulary").
>
> Further, there is no (explicit semantic) relationship between the original
> RDF Reification ("rdf:Statement") and the new annotation-reification
> ("owl:Axiom") vocabulary. We have introduced the latter as a resolution for
> ISSUE-67 ("reification for axiom annotation").
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:24 PM
> To: Jie Bao
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: Re: RDF features in OWL 2
>
>
> Sorry for the slow reply -- still catching up after the F2F and ISWC.
>
> Speaking for myself, I don't see any point in including these
> features in the QR.
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 23 Oct 2008, at 01:12, Jie Bao wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi All
>
> I'm not quite sure whether the following RDF features are still
> supported in OWL 2
>
> * complex values using rdf:value, e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#example21
> * RDF containers
> * RDF reification (in particular, I'm not sure about its relationship
> to owl:Axiom reification)
>
> I'm asking for decisions on whether to include them in the quick
> reference. I didn't see their presence in any of the existing OWL 2
> documents. Thanks in advance.
>
> Jie
>
>
>
> --
> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe
> Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
> Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de
> Web  : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555
>
> FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe
> Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe
> Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959
> Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts
> Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe
> Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer
> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2008 07:14:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 4 November 2008 07:14:59 GMT