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: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:25:20 -0400
Message-Id: <p05200f5dbae82c67d6e8@[129.2.176.174]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-webont-wg@w3.org

I can live with that - so okay w/ me - Guus?


At 1:15 PM -0400 5/14/03, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>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

-- 
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 Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:25:31 GMT

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