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

Re: keeping Jeremy happy

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 09:37:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20021231.093702.107985848.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: RE: keeping Jeremy happy
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 13:16:27 +0100

> 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 would agree with this.

> 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?

No.  The documents are ambiguous, in that they could either be a
statement about an OWL individual or a ``non-logical'' annotation.

> 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?

Sure, but the result might not be OWL/DL or OWL/Lite.

I have not put adequate thought into this issue.  I may be able to work on
it today.

> 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).

No.  Again this issue has not been adequately addressed.  (The idea is
addressed in the RDFS semantics section, by the way.)

> 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> .

Not right now.  They probably should be, and I will see if I can arrange it so.

I *think* that a simple change - to using what is in effect the OWL imports
closure of an RDF graph instead of the graph itself - is adequate.

> Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 09:37:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:49 UTC