- From: Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:22:26 -0500
- To: Boris Motik <bmotik@cs.man.ac.uk>
- CC: 'Matthew Horridge' <matthew.horridge@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 1/26/07 6:27 AM, Boris Motik wrote: > Hello, > > Well, we've been thinking about this, but decided not to do so for an > important reason. Consider an ontology O containing an object property P for > which there is no declaration. A serialization of O into an RDF graph must > ensure the following two things: > > (1) When you parse the graph, you must be able to decode the type of P. > (2) The parsing should correctly restore the "declaredness" status of P -- > that is, after parsing, the ontology should not contain a declaration for P. > > Now the problem is that, to ensure compatibility with OWL DL, we use > rdf:type to ensure (1). In the worst case, you really need to include a > triple > > (3) <P, rdf:type, owl:ObjectProperty> > > so that, when you parse the graph, you know what the type of P is. But then, > you should not use rdf:type to reflect the "declaredness" status of P in an > ontology; otherwise, any ontology that contains the triple (3) will also > contain a declaration for P. > Boris, could you explain a little why (2) is needed in the first place. What kind of problems arise if the ontology after parsing contains a declaration for P? If the type of P will be decoded as ObjectProperty in the end, having (3) seems harmless. Thanks, Evren > We weren't able to find a way out of this problem and have, consequently, > introduced the owl:declaredAs property. > > Thanks anyway for this suggestion! > > Sincerely yours, > > Boris > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-owl-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-dev-request@w3.org] >> On Behalf Of Matthew Horridge >> Sent: 26 January 2007 10:06 >> To: public-owl-dev@w3.org >> Subject: declaredAs >> >> >> All, >> >> I've been working on an OWL 1.1 parser/renderer recently, and I >> wondered if we could just use rdf:type instead of owl:declaredAs for >> entity declarations in the RDF mapping. I can't immediately see a >> problem with doing this, and I believe it would improve backwards >> compatibility with the existing "OWL 1.0" RDF/XML mapping. Any >> thoughts? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matthew >> > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 26 January 2007 15:22:35 UTC