Re: Mapping rules bug-ette and fix?

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Mapping rules bug-ette and fix?
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2003 15:49:42 +0100

> I think the mapping rules document has a little tension between its two
> sections concerning triples of the form
> 
> <p> rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
> 
> and
> 
> <p> rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
> 
> 
> ==
> 
> The textual description says
> 
> [[
> A node x in G is an object property if x is a URI reference and there is a
> triple of the form x rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
> ]]
> 
> and
> 
> [[
> A node x in G is a datatype property if x is a URI reference and there is a
> triple of the form x rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
> ]]
> 
> This seems consistent with various e-mails from Peter.
> 
> However, the mapping rules themselves when applied to
> 
> Individual( ( <p> Individual() ) )
> produce
> 
> _:b <p> T(Individual()) .
> 
> i.e.
> 
> _:b <p> _:c .
> 
> ===
> 
> If the intent is that all properties should be typed, then I suggest that
> the two individual rules be changed, e.g.
> from
> _:x T(<annotation1>) . … _:x T(<annotationn>) .
> _:x rdf:type T(<type1>) . … _:x rdf:type T(<typen>) .
> _:x <pID1> T(<value1>) . … _:x <pIDn> T(<valuen>) .
> 
> to
> _:x T(<annotation1>) . … _:x T(<annotationn>) .
> _:x rdf:type T(<type1>) . … _:x rdf:type T(<typen>) .
> _:x T(<pID1>) T(<value1>) . … _:x T(<pIDn>) T(<valuen>) .
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremy

Yes, this would work, and would make for a better mapping.  It will show up
later today.

peter