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

Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:28:50 -0400
Message-ID: <29af5e2d0905181328n1cf4f3f8u2fc430b5e2eab1d6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org, mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de, evren@clarkparsia.com
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> 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.

In this message from Sandro he asserts that it was a requirement of HP
for moving to last call that rdf:text literals do not "escape" into



> peter
> 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 20:29:50 UTC

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