- From: OWL Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 07:00:31 +0000 (GMT)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
ISSUE-56 (repairsomerdf): Specify standard "repairs" for moving select RDF documents to OWL? http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg On product: From: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2007Nov/0261.html ... makes me wonder whether it might make sense to formalize a set of standard repairs, defining exactly what the suggested repairs are and consequences thereof. Maybe we could call this a "profile" or somesuch, giving tool providers sanction to perform these repairs when users explicitly ask for RDF/RDFS to be reasoned with under the closest OWL-DL semantics possible. I suggest this because even though such repair services are offered by some tools, it isn't always clear what they are doing. Also, having this in the specification might allow more developers who want or need to use RDFS for other reasons (can't see why they would, personally :) to do so, while still making provision for users who wished to use the stronger inference capabilities available in DL reasoners. Viewed in this context, translating bnodes into skolems would be one more "repair". In other words, it provides a way for there to be a simpler migration path for users of RDF/RDFS who are intrigued by OWL, but not ready to commit to changing their vocabulary.
Received on Sunday, 18 November 2007 07:00:41 UTC