W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2009

RE: OWL dot OWL file

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:11:27 +0200
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00154665A@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Ivan!

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
>Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:55 AM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: Ian Horrocks; W3C OWL Working Group
>Subject: Re: OWL dot OWL file
>Hi Michael
>(Background: some months ago I went through the RDF based semantics
>document and I extracted the axiomatic triples based on the spec. What I
>compare is what I did then and what Michael has done now)
>Everything you have there seems to be correct (no surprise...).
>Actually, I had some triples missing in my version...
>My list for RL also includes facts about the datatypes that are nowhere
>stated other than the xsd document. Things like:
>(xsd:anyURI, owl:disjointWith, xsd:base64Binary),
>(xsd:long, owl:subClassOf, xsd:integer),

Since these relationships are not represented in any of the Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, which Section 6 on Axiomatic Triples exclusively refers to, these relationships have no place in the list of axiomatic triples. I know that the description in Section 6 not even mentions datatypes and facets at all at the moment, but adding text for this is on my agenda, since the triples I have added for datatypes and facets are really represented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. Not treating this was simply an oversight.

>It may be worth thinking about adding those to owl.owl, though not
>necessarily to the RDF Bases semantics document.

I would prefer to have owl2.owl be a subset of the axiomatic triples, so this file is then represented at least in *some* form in one of our documents. I spend some work in the previous few days to get this relationship reasonably well (I had to adjust a few things here and there). Also note that owl2.owl is about the *OWL* vocabulary terms, not about XSD, so any reference to the datatypes seem sort of off-scope for owl2.owl (at least to me). And also, there is no precedence for having datatypes treated by owl.owl, and we only wanted to extend owl.owl "a little".

>I also did a conversion of your content into RDF/XML, added a copy of
>the annotation that is in the current version on the web. The result is
>More comments can be added to the <Ontology> part of the file but,
>essentially, I believe what is there can then be published as owl.owl
>when the time comes, ie, putting this issue behind us.

Oh, I also just created a page... 

I want to defer the RDF/XML production till the end, so let's go on with my page, which also now contains new information.



>Michael Schneider wrote:
>> Hi again!
>> To complete my proposal from earlier this day, I have now added to the
>> RDF-Based Semantics my proposal for the list of axiomatic triples,
>which I
>> have talked about in the last TC:
>> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF-
>> es>
>> The first two "blocks" on "CLASSES" and "PROPERTIES" are exactly what
>I have
>> earlier proposed as the content of the owl2.owl ontology. It covers
>all the
>> OWL 2 classes and properties, and in addition the four annotation
>> from RDFS. So, by this means, owl2.owl would be represented in one of
>> OWL 2 documents, and would have the same state as in OWL 1: There, it
>> /informative/ and was contained in an appendix (in the Reference
>> The nice thing here is that it perfectly matches the given place in
>> RDF-Based Semantics, it's not simply an "add on".
>> In addition, there are three further blocks on "DATATYPES", "FACETS"
>and on
>to be
>> of relevance for that section on "Axiomatic Triples" in the RDF-Based
>> Semantics. The third block covers all the 30+ mandatory datatypes of
>OWL 2.
>> The fourth block covers the facets (as datatype properties). The
>triples in
>> these two blocks correspond to what's written in the texts of Section
>> and 5.3 of the RDF-Based Semantics, respectively. The fifth block
>> the triples that make several OWL terms equivalent to terms from
>> e.g. owl:ObjectProperty is equivalent to rdf:Property in the OWL 2
>> Semantics.
>> @Ivan: Can you please have a closer look to this list, maybe checking
>> what's in your implementation? I could do this myself, but it's better
>> have a second pair of eyes on this large list.
>> Cheers,
>> Michael
>> --
>> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider
>> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE)
>> Tel  : +49-721-9654-726
>> Fax  : +49-721-9654-727
>> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de
>> WWW  : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider
>> 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, RP Karlsruhe
>> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael
>> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer
>> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
>Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>mobile: +31-641044153
>PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:12:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:13 UTC