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

Re: new version of S&AS

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:25:32 +0100
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200303191525.32834.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


I have been revising my version of the rules just enough to generate the 
triple tables ...

I had a few points/questions - two of which Guus has already made

- 3.a EquivalentClass
- 3.b Deprecation of datatypes?
(I missed the datarange mapping rule qu)

Further ...

- the mapping rules don't yet seem to allow DAGs of descriptions; I was hoping 
for changes in the introductory text

- the rules seem to allow an annotation with an object which is an arbitrary 
uriref, which may not have a type triple - is that an oversight or 
deliberate?

- the following triple is incorrectly permitted:
rdfs:Literal rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .

- I had asked whether we could liberalise the rules concerning 
InverseFunctionalProperty, TranstiveProperty, SymmetricProperty to avoid 
requiring two type triples for these in OWL Lite and OWL DL. My suggestion 
was:
    + make the rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty triple optional
    + add global constraint that every individual valued property had one of 
these type triples.
    + ensure that each of these classes is a subclass of owl:ObjectProperty in 
the RDFS compatible semantics

What is the status of this suggestion?

- Further I had suggested that the optional triples permitting 
      _:blank rdf:type rdfs:Class .
  on description and restriction nodes were not useful and should be deleted. 
Rationale: the optional RDFS triples are there to enhance interoperability 
with RDFS, yet RDFS idiom does not use such triples with blank subjects. 
Moreover the blank nodes cannot be shared between files, so occur only in OWL 
files.

Again, what is the status of this suggestion?


BTW the newish text on the side condition looks good - thanks for sorting 
this.

Jeremy




 

.
Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 09:25:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:58 GMT