Re: SWBPD note on QCRs

On 25 Apr 2006, at 18:10, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
> Subject: SWBPD note on QCRs
> Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:51:39 +0200
>
>> Peter, Ian,
>>
>> In the SW Best Practices group Alan Rector and I have been working on 
>> a
>> note on QCRs, with the intention of providing guidance for ontology
>> engineers. The note is mainly based on the work-arounds and proposals 
>> we
>> developed during the WebOnt discussions about this. The current draft
>> [1] has been lying around for a year or so (there were some formatting
>> updates, but nothing major) and we would like to finish this now.
>>
>> Patterns 1 & 2 in [1] are work-arounds for OWL as it is. I want to 
>> draw
>> your attention to pattern 3, a "non-endorsed OWL extension", which
>> actually comes from the WebOnt resolution on QCRs [2, end of the 
>> email].
>>
>> I was looking at OWL 1.1 documents [3, 4] to see what kind of syntax 
>> you
>> propose. I found the abstract syntax, but no mapping to RDF/XML 
>> triples.
>> I have two questions:
>
>
>
>> - Is there a proposal for a OWL 1.1 RDF/XML representation of QCRs?
>
> There is a proposal for an XML dialect for OWL 1.1 forthcoming, based 
> on
> work by the DIG working group
> (http://homepages.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~seanb/dig/).   See the DIG XML
> Schema http://homepages.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~seanb/dig/schema.xsd
>
> There is no current proposal for an RDF/XML encoding of OWL 1.1.

There isn't a current proposal, but there is an intention to produce an 
RDF/XML encoding for OWL 1.1, and work is already underway on this.

I agree with Peter and Pat that the syntax pattern you propose would 
have serious drawbacks, and I imagine that we will introduce "Q" 
variants of the cardinality triples.

lan



>   To just
> have an RDF/XML syntax for OWL 1.1 is not hard, but this alone does not
> make a same-syntax extension of RDF(S).  To do a same-syntax extension
> "right" requires a considerable amount of work, if it is even possible.
>
>> - What do you think of the proposed RDF/XML syntax in pattern 3 of 
>> [1]?
>> Comments and/or proposals for alternatives would be very much
>> appreciated.
>
> This syntax would have a non-monotonic meaning considered as a 
> same-syntax
> extension of RDF(S), which makes it problematic.  A monotonic reading
> requires different tags, at least for owl:cardinality and
> owl:maxCardinality.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Best,
>> Guus
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/
>> [2] 
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0072.html
>> [3] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/overview.html
>> [4] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research

Received on Sunday, 7 May 2006 11:18:31 UTC