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

Determining the type of an IRI for OWL 2 Full represented in structural specification

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:22:27 -0400
Message-Id: <84D1E594-3324-4333-A86B-A75917ED87C7@creativecommons.org>
To: W3C OWL Working Group <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On Mar 19, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Ian Horrocks wrote:

> Dear Frank,
>
> Thank you for your comment
>     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-comments/2009Jan/0035.html 
> >
> on the OWL 2 Web Ontology Language last call drafts.
> ...
> The Structural Specification and Functional-Style Syntax document  
> was always intended as a specification of the features provided by  
> OWL 2 as a whole [...]

This statement came as a big surprise to me. I had thought the  
structural spec was only of interest for OWL 2 DL.

When converting OWL 2 Full to the structural specification, how does  
one determine the type of each IRI occurrence? OWL 2 Full does not  
require declarations, so one cannot just consult declarations. Is the  
intent that an IRI be assigned a type at each occurrence in any manner  
that permits the construction of correct UML instances? Or is it that  
only those OWL 2 Full ontologies that provide declarations are  
convertible to the structural specification?

More generally, what is the attitude toward OWL 2 Full ontologies that  
have no SS representation at all?  Or does the structural  
specification cover OWL 2 Full (i.e. permit representation of  
arbitrary RDF graphs) in some way?

I do not understand the desire to represent OWL 2 Full in the  
structural spec; I don't see how this is at all useful. It seems much  
simpler to me to say that the structural spec is only intended for use  
with OWL 2 DL. Then there is no need to answer annoying questions  
about declarations and dialect coverage.

My apologies if this has been discussed (surely it has; but I am about  
3800 messages behind in my reading). If so kindly direct me to the  
correct archived email thread.

Thanks
Jonathan
Received on Monday, 23 March 2009 16:23:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 23 March 2009 16:23:12 GMT