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: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:59:36 -0500
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0811050759o60f3766t480dd0f1f96d7f2e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
> I still don't understand it. Do you mean that one should be allowed to
> treat, for example, rdf:value in the same way as every other /unreserved/
> URI? So rdf:value may, for example, be declared as a class, can occur in
> equivalenceClass axioms, etc.?

Yes, that would be my starting assumption.

> Or should there be still constraints in OWL 2
> that restrict the use of rdf:value in certain ways (currently, such
> restrictions exist in the form that rdf:value cannot be used at all)?

I'm not sure - I was hoping someone might comment on whether there
were problems that arise with such usage. We've already established
that the list vocabulary is a problem.

However a middle point would be to allow the use of select rdf
properties: subject,object,predicate,member,value,_1,_2,..._n as owl
properties, as long as they were further specialized to be object,
data, or annotation properties, and for select classes:
statement,container,alt,bag,seq to be used as long as they were
further declared to be owl classes.

I suggest this as a way of having fewer rdf documents be unable to be
coerced to OWL, realizing that the cost is perhaps further disparity
between the entailments of OWL Full and OWL DL.


> Michael
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>>On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:51 PM
>>To: Michael Schneider
>>Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>>Subject: Re: RDF features in OWL 2
>>Before we had rdf importing, if we were to allow the rdf vocabulary we
>>might have thought it necessary to decide what sort of properties the
>>various rdf properties were. We could now, instead, simply allow their
>>use in owl:imported rdf documents as long as the importing document
>>declares their type.
>>That annotations are on "URI"s also makes the question of what type
>>they are less acute - the annotations will be valid regardless of how
>>they are typed.
>>A specific example might be the use of some of rdf reification
>>vocabulary in a certain ontology by declaring rdf:subject, object, and
>>predicate to be object properties.
>>On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
>>> Hi Alan!
>>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>>>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
>>>>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?
>>> For my interest: What do you exactly mean by this? In particular, I do
>>> understand how 114 and 137 come into play here.
>>> Michael
>>>>On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Elisa F. Kendall
>>>>> Thanks, Michael --
>>>>> That was our preliminary conclusion, but we wanted to confirm one
>>>>> "just to make sure" :).
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Elisa
>>>>> Michael Schneider wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>> I think Jie's question can easily be answered. Have a look in
>>>>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
>>>>> according to Table 2. And none of these URIs appear in Table 3
>>>>> 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
>>>>> Further, there is no (explicit semantic) relationship between the
>>>>> 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-
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 20:40:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC