W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > December 2002

RE: keeping Jeremy happy

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:16:27 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200212311316.27864.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


Thanks Peter, again, for these improvements ...

I hope I am not the only who cares about making OWL DL useable with RDF.

My main concern at the level of the documents is that the restrictions 
implicit in this mapping are not expressed clearly enough elsewhere. In fact, 
I would go as far as to say that the other document authors appear unaware of 
the restrictions.

I still feel that the extent of this restrictions is excessive and should be 
revised further downward further.

I have some clarification questions, mainly so that I can make correct 
comments about the other documents.

1: Is a document of a single triple e.g.

_:x <eg:a> <eg:b> .

or

<eg:x> <eg:d> "foo" .

a legal OWL Lite document?

2: Can an OWL/DL document import one that is not OWL/DL.
Can an OWL/Lite doc import one that is not OWL/Lite?

3:  Can an OWL DL document import two OWL DL documents that use the same URI 
refs differently (e.g. <eg:a> as an Individual ID in one, and as an 
ObjectPropertyID in the other).

4: Given the following file at <a>

<a#p> rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
<a#c> rdf:type owl:Class .

is the following file in OWL DL?

<> owl:imports <a> .
<x> rdf:type owl:Class .
<x> owl:subClassOf _:r .
_:r rdf:type owl:Restiction .
_:r owl:onProperty <a#p> .
_:r owl:minCardinality "1"^^xsd:integer .

or the following file:

<> owl:imports <a> .
<y> rdf:type <a#c> .


Jeremy









 
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 07:18:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:56 GMT