- From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:16:38 -0500
- To: "Raphael Volz" <volz@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Webont" <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
At 16:34 +0000 2/20/03, Raphael Volz wrote: >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... or did until it was pointed out :-> > >I am therefore in favour of reopening that issue. > >Raphael As chair I am resistant to doing so - this was a divisive issue which we resolved through the WG process quite well. I think once we have a validator that points things like this out (and we have several people working on these), then the issue will be less serious seeming. We're already getting a lot of comments asking why we have owl:class when rdfs:class exists, and I think we would have a lot of negative comments if we changed our decision on this (in fact, one of the reasons we ended up making this decision was comments on our earlier drafts saying "don't reinvent things you don't have to") - It is sometimes a pain, but we discussed the situation when we closed issue 5.20 [1] and at this point there's nothing that has really changed. It might, however, be worth looking through the new Reference document and see if it adequately points out which are which -JH [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.20-should-OWL-provide-synonyms-for-RDF-and-RDFS-objects > >> -----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/ >> >> -- Professor James Hendler hendler@cs.umd.edu Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies 301-405-2696 Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab. 301-405-6707 (Fax) Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 240-731-3822 (Cell) http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 18:16:49 UTC