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

AW: Syntax Changes (domain etc. in owl NS)

From: Raphael Volz <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:34:52 -0000
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CJEPKBAAMOMMFPDCDFGFOELKCJAA.volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>

Hi -

I am well aware that this has been discussed and closed,
however we can see this as a major source of errors in
testing ontologies via our parser. People get it wrong
every second time they (manually) write ontologies, this
issue may be a non-issue if we assume that most ontologies
are generated programmatically, however at the time being
it is a serious problem, see for example the Maryland
DAML converter, that generates owl:Property...

I am therefore in favour of reopening that issue.

Raphael


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: www-webont-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-webont-wg-request@w3.org]Im Auftrag von Dan Connolly
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 20. Februar 2003 16:26
> An: Sean Bechhofer
> Cc: WebOnt WG
> Betreff: Re: Syntax Changes (domain etc. in owl NS)
>
>
>
> On Thu, 2003-02-20 at 09:38, Sean Bechhofer wrote:
> > Raphael and I would like to propose the following changes to the
> > concrete syntax. This is based on our implementation experience over
> > the last couple of weeks.
>
> [...]
>
> > 2) Move everything into the owl namespace.
>
> Been there, discussed that, no thanks.
>
> 5.20 Should OWL provide synonyms for RDF and RDFS objects?
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.20-should-O
> WL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects
>
> I don't see any new information that would merit reopening
> this decision.
>
> >  Thus rather than using
> >    rdf:type, rdfs:domain, rdfs:range etc., we have owl:type, owl:domain
> >    etc. This would have two benefits:
> >
> >    a) Reduce user confusion as to which namespace to use. Examples in
> >    the past have shown that users typically get confused about whether
> >    they should use, for example rdf:type or rdfs:type or
> >    owl:type.
> >
> >    b) This would also be of benefit when processing or parsing OWL
> >    ontologies as the processor can make assumptions about the type of
> >    the object of, for example owl:domain (which must be some
> >    owl:Class).
> >
> >    If the OWL.owl schema specification contains the relevant
> >    assertions. e.g.
> >
> >    owl:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type
> >
> >    then any ontology written using the owl vocabulary would still be
> >    accessible to an RDF/RDFS processor.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > 	Sean
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
>
>
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 11:37:30 GMT

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