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

Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs

From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:16:37 -0400
Message-ID: <20090518.161637.210718735.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
CC: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, <evren@clarkparsia.com>
I'm not sure what part of the documents you are basing this behaviour
on.   As far as I can see our documents leave it completely up to
implementations as to how they are to implement the relationship between
rdf:text literals and plain literals, and this is how it should be.   


From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 15:00:05 -0500

> Hi Peter,
> I'm not sure what this has to do with serialization in a particular
> RDF format. Rather it has to do with us using one datatype (rdf:text)
> and specifying that serializations are to be done using a different
> datatype (plain literals) that happen to have equal values. This is
> independent of RDF/XML.
> As it stands now, it looks like if one reads in an ontology with plain
> literals and immediately write it out, one gets an ontology with the
> plain literals replaced by rdf:text literals.
> In my implementation of the translator I had to code the replacement
> somewhere and realized that it was unspecified in the translation.
> -Alan
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
> <pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
>> I do not think that this is an appropriate place to so specify.  The
>> mapping in "Mapping to RDF Graphs" produces RDF graphs, not RDF/XML or,
>> really, any particular serialization of an RDF graph, even though of
>> necessity the document uses a particular syntax for RDF graphs.  It is
>> up to implementations to decide what to do with the various aspects of
>> rdf:text serialization.
>> I don't think that it is even a good idea to even allude to this problem
>> in "Mapping to RDF Graphs", just as it is not a good idea to even allude
>> to the problems in serializing some RDF Graphs in RDF/XML in this
>> document either.
>> peter
>> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs
>> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:16:08 -0500
>>> I have noticed an issue with the translation of rdf:text literals. It
>>> seems to me that mapping should be where it is specified that rdf:text
>>> literals get translated to plain literals.
>>> -Alan
>>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ian Horrocks
>>>> <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Michael, Markus, Evren,
>>>>> As LC1 reviewers of Mapping to RDF Graphs can you please take a *very* quick
>>>>> look at the latest version and confirm that you are OK with any minor
>>>>> changes that may have occurred since the 1st Last Call and that, in your
>>>>> opinion, the document is "CR-ready".
>>>> I'm fine with all the changes and I think the document is CR-ready,
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Evren
Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 20:16:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:12 UTC