W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > February 2003

Re: a proposal for defining OWL DL documents (was Re: OWL, XML-RDF and Imports)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:56:31 -0600
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org, Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
Message-id: <1045450590.26053.24.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 08:54, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> Continuing along with Sean's reasoning, I propose that the definition of
> an OWL DL document, i.e., an RDF/XML document that is an OWL DL ontology,
> be modified to be:
> 
> 
> 
> DEFINITION:  An RDF/XML document is an OWL DL ontology if 

[...]

Could you give some examples to show the difference between
this proposal and the spec as written? Perhaps take
the imports test cases and say how it impacts them?

http://www.w3.org/2002/03owlt/editors-draft/snapshot#approvedFunction-imports


Hmm... is this a request to re-open issue 5.6?
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.6-daml:imports-as-magic-syntax

Let's see... we closed it 14Nov... the pointer seems to go to 7Nov,
though... Mike, pls change that to
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0202.html
if I don't get to it first...
Ah yes, we adopted Heflin's proposal of 1Nov
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0004.html

Yes, this proposal seems to be substantively different from
that decision; i.e. this is a request to re-open the issue.


Very well; I think I have even more evidence now that we shouldn't
standardize owl:imports in this version. I'd be happy to see
it reopened.


> 1/ the RDF graph resulting from parsing it as an RDF/XML document forms the
>    translation of a single OWL ontology in the abstract syntax;
> 
> 2/ all RDF/XML documents that it imports are also in OWL DL ontology form;
> 
>    and
> 
> 3/ the imports closure of the document 
> 
>    a/ does not use any URI reference as more than one of an ontology name,
>       a classID, a datatypeID, an individualID, a datavaluedPropertyID, an
>       individualvaluedPropertyID, or an annotationPropertyID; and
> 
>    b/ does not use any of the URI references from the RDF, RDFS, or OWL
>       namespaces that are mentioned in the RDF or OWL semantics except for
>       the OWL datatypes, the OWL built-in classes, and the OWL built-in
>       annotation properties.
> 
> 
> 
> Imports closure is defined as finding all the directly and indirectly
> imported documents and then forming the merge of their RDF graphs along
> with the RDF graph of the document itself.
> 
> The definition for Lite is similar.
> 
> 
> 
> This would go along with a version of the translation rules that required
> rdf:type triples for classes, datatypes, datatype properties, object
> properties, and annotation properties, but not for ontologies or
> individuals.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
> Lucent Technologies
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Sunday, 16 February 2003 21:56:39 GMT

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