W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > July 2008

Re: How do you deprecate URIs? Re: OWL-DL and linked data

From: Steve Harris <swh@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:21:56 +0100
Cc: public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web at W3C <semantic-web@w3c.org>
Message-Id: <9632BCE2-DC23-41FF-8B77-2AC94B1DE853@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>

On 9 Jul 2008, at 14:27, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On 9 Jul 2008, at 13:38, Steve Harris wrote:
>
>>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Annotation_System#Probabilistic_extension
>>
>> That looks interesting, but I can't read OWL(2) syntax, so can't  
>> imagine what the interpretation in triples would look like.
>
> Here's an example:
> 	http://pellet.owldl.com/ontologies/penguin_prob.owl

Ah, so (just checking I understood what I'm reading) it's a relative  
of RDF Reification, but I'm guessing this also implies the triple it  
describes?

One thing that strikes me about it is that (as in RDF Reification) you  
can't make assertions things about a set of triples. I'm not sure  
whether that matters or not though.

>> Yves' problem could be solved with "hand-reification" (I'm sure  
>> there's a proper term for it), a la:
>>
>> <http://example.org/a> :similarToConfidence [
>>  :similarTo <http://example.org/b> ;
>>  :confidence 0.4 ;
>> ] .
>
> It's on the reification chart. The problem is that there's no  
> standard mapping into an axiom. SWRL works this way, and, really, so  
> does OWL. THere are loads of problem with that in OWL :(

Sure, there's no general mapping from a triple to its reified form if  
you do it this way. I guess if you try to make it generic then you end  
end up with RDF Reification, c.f. the problem :)

>> That doesn't have any strict interpretation of course, but it is at  
>> least more convenient to work with at an RDF level.
>>
>>> You might also look at my reificaiton table:
>>> 	http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Reification_Alternatives
>>
>> I like the data URI one, though it has some issues, possibly not as  
>> many as the other schemes.
>>
>> Named Graphs are somewhat blessed by the SPARQL GRAPH operator -  
>> it's doesn't give all of the named graphs idea but gives enough.
>
> No syntax :(

Well... that's arguable. You can put your statement(s) of interest in  
a different file and refer to it:

file:1
    <http://example.org/a> a foaf:Document.
    <file:2> :confidence 0.4 .

file:2
    <http://example.org/a> :similarTo <http://example.org/b> .

>> Probably not useful for annotations on small units of RDF though.
>
>
> Yeah :(

But yeah, hardly convenient.

- Steve
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 14:23:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:40 UTC