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

Re: proposed reply for Re: OWL S&AS comment - owl:Ontology mapping to/from RDF triples

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:15:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20030514.131501.97345616.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: hendler@cs.umd.edu
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: proposed reply for Re: OWL S&AS comment - owl:Ontology mapping to/from RDF triples
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 12:48:40 -0400

> Peter - am okay w/this with a few modifications (snipping everything 
> else to save space)
> 
> 
> At 12:33 PM -0400 5/14/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> >>    OWL Web Ontology Language Semantics and Abstract Syntax
> >>    W3C Working Draft 31 March 2003
> >>    http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-owl-semantics-20030331/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >>  If several OWL Ontologies are in the same RDF graph such as when they
> >>  are taken from multiple sources (such as via owl:import), there will
> >>  be no connection between the OWL Ontology and the components.
> >
> >Yes, agreed.  I'm not sure what, if any, remedy is possible or desired
> >here.  I've explained that there are no semantic consequences of this
> >relationship.
> >
> >What would you suggest as a possible avenue to explore?
> 
> i would not engage the comment raiser in a discussion in this case. 
> I think I would suggest dropping the "what would you suggest" line

Good point.  :-)  Done.


> >>  Please can you explain why the OWL Ontology container-to-component
> >>  relation in the abstract syntax is not passed through to the OWL
> >>  transfer syntax.
> >
> >Largely because the OWL transfer syntax (RDF graphs as encoded in RDF/XML)
> >is not a suitable vehicle for doing this.
> 
> True, but let's say why -- something like
> 
> The OWL transfer syntax uses RDF graphs as encoded in RDF/XML. 
> Currently, there is no standard mechanism in RDF for representing the 
> context of information, recommending instead the use of RDF 
> annotations [point to RDF LC doc?]. These annotations were a factor 
> in our WG deciding to add annotations to our language [point to issue 
> 5.26] and that is currently the mechanism to be used for this kind of 
> container-to-component mapping.

Will do.  Which document would be appropriate?

I don't think that 5.26 covers annotation properties.  I'll just talk about
annotation properties directly.

New wording


The OWL transfer syntax uses RDF graphs as encoded in RDF/XML.  Currently,
there is no standard mechanism in RDF for representing the context of
information.  However, it is possible in RDF to use properties such as
rdfs:isDefinedBy to achieve part (but only part) of this purpose.  Such
properties can also be used in OWL in annotations.


>    -JH

[...]

peter
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:15:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:00 GMT