W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > May 2014

Re: Are there any plans to develop an OWL version of QUDT?

From: Simon Spero <sesuncedu@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:11:43 -0400
Message-ID: <CADE8KM6Q_Tq4jc4Fa1bk0DbNpvnqaPEGRRCQk47e+vDh_QZeqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Holger Knublauch <holger@topquadrant.com>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Ralph Hodgson <rhodgson@topquadrant.com>
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-mapping-to-rdf/#Mapping_from_RDF_Graphs_to_the_Structural_Specification
>
> Maybe you meant: 'The mapping from RDF to OWL is explicitly only defined
> for OWL-DL'? Which is correct but, in fact, mapping to OWL-Full is not
> really useful because OWL-Full is defined in RDF only...
>

*Thanks: That is indeed what I meant to say. *

OWL 2 is defined by the AS/FSS; a restricted subset of that language is
defined as OWL 2 DL.  The AS/FSS does not define the term OWL 2 Full to
describe the whole language;  (it is used in documents like the OWL 2
Conformance Tests  http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-conformance-20121211/)

The forward mapping specifies how the abstract syntax should be translated
to RDF, and as you note,  is defined for the entire language, with the the
OWL 2 RDF Semantics specifying the semantics for the generated RDF. The
Direct Semantics is only defined for the DL part of the language.  The RDF
Semantics generally correspond to the Direct Semantics for DL, and are used

The problem, as you note, is that it is not possible to recreate a non-DL
OWL 2 Ontology that has been stored in RDF, which is useful for editing.
 It *is* possible to load such an ontology that is saved using the
Functional Style Syntax, and, if entity types are declared, it is possible
to load many non-DL ontologies. There are some places where it is not
possible to round-trip, even *with* entity type declarations.

Simon
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 19:12:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:41 UTC