W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: Suggestion for 10.2.1 RDFa core - mention owl:equivalentClass and owl:equivalentProperty as useful documentation

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@kellogg-assoc.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:19:45 -0500
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C RDFWA WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Message-ID: <DEDB6120-6BEE-47CE-AE83-B9CF8D52D849@greggkellogg.net>
I agree that we should make this change, I think equivalentProperty/equivalentClass more accurately reflects what we were trying to achieve.

Thanks for the reference to OWL2 RL.

Gregg

On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

> Just on the technical/spec aspect of this.
> 
> The current text refers to the RDF Semantics document, and to RDFS Entailment rules as the way to perform the low level entailment. To use the owl:equivalentProperty and owl:equivalentClass, the best editorial way is to exchange the reference to the OWL 2 RL profile:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#OWL_2_RL
> 
> more exactly, to the OWL 2 RL Profile expressed as rules:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-profiles/#Reasoning_in_OWL_2_RL_and_RDF_Graphs_using_Rules
> 
> The rest of the text in the spec remains more or less identical, except that the rule references should be changed to the ones in OWL RL and the following rules should be added: prp-eqp1, prp-eqp2, cax-eqc1, cax-eqc2. I would keep away from owl:sameAs which pulls in lots of extra rules unnecessarily. Leave that to more full-blown reasoners.
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is that adding these is not a huge deal.
> 
> Ivan 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 16:13 , Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
>> Outcome of the thread below, and looking at
>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines
>> ... can you expand a sentence to make it possible for exact
>> equivalences to be clearly documented?:
>> 
>>> At " If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and
>>> subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known
>>> vocabularies."
>>> I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg.
>>> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking".
>> 
>> I'd like to offer comments on the post-processing algorithm but I'm
>> not sure what I think about it yet! So sending this along first.
>> 
>> cheers,
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> ps. I realise I'm commenting on a (potentially volatile) editor's draft
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
>> Date: 14 November 2011 16:11
>> Subject: Re: Draft Note for HTML WG
>> To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
>> Cc: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, HTML Data Task Force WG
>> <public-html-data-tf@w3.org>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 14, 2011, at 15:28 , Dan Brickley wrote:
>> 
>>> On 14 November 2011 15:05, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am not vehemently against adopting some OWL statements, essentially the equivalency things. Can you submit a kind of an error message to the RDFa WG on this? It would make it easier to discuss this.
>>> 
>>> Sure, can you remember me what spec this is a comment on? :)
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_guidelines
>>> I guess...?
>>> 
>> 
>> Yes
>> 
>>> " If possible, vocabulary descriptions should include subproperty and
>>> subclass statements linking the vocabulary terms to other, well-known
>>> vocabularies."
>>> I'd suggest "subproperty, subclass and other mapping statements (eg.
>>> owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty)" linking".
>>> 
>>> However that only covers vocab publishing, not consumption. Ah, here we go:
>>> 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/sources/rdfa-core/Overview-src.html#s_vocab_expansion_details
>>> 
>>> I need to think about this more. This is interesting and potentially
>>> very useful stuff but kind of scary too, since there are environments
>>> (e.g. untrusted wifi LAN) where these vocabulary fetches could pull
>>> down malware triples, even while the source document being parsed is
>>> trustable. I hope the parser 'post-processing' APIs will have some
>>> sensible controls there, but I'm not sure what would count as
>>> sensible...
>>> 
>>> Anyway feel free to pass along my comments re the OWL part...
>>> 
>> 
>> It has more weight if you report it...:-)
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 18:20:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 04:55:18 GMT