Re: comments on RDF mapping

I think Jim's example about subObjectPropertyOf is compelling.

In essence, I don't think we can publish a meaningful and helpful RDF 
Mapping document until we have decided whether or not we accept the 
'punning' design in the member submission.

I think this is one of the features of OWL 1.1 that causes the greatest 
unease with the HP developers. As I understand the design, language 
terms like subObjectPropertyOf are largely motivated by the punning design.

A further possible motivation is that in OWL 1.0, at I think mainly my 
request, one design choice is that the triples version of OWL DL is 
strongly typed, in the sense that (nearly) every URI and blank node is 
required to have an rdf:type triple. Many of the required type 
declarations are unnecessary, and it may be a better design to allow 
unnecessary ones to be omitted. However, I think that the explosion of 
terms in the member of submission is unfortuante, and should be avoided.

Jeremy

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 10:23:15 UTC