Re: comments on RDF mapping

Oops, I forgot to pick up the ow11 vocabularly as well.  I'll include it
in the comparison.

peter


From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:08:21 -0400 (EDT)

> 
> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:17:02 -0400
> 
> > 
> > One thing what would help me a lot, and maybe reduce some of my  
> > confusion would be if there was a single table somewhere of all the  
> > vocabulary terms that will now be in OWL, perhaps with a * as to  
> > which ones are syntactic sugar.  
> 
> Do you mean
> 
> owl:AnnotationProperty
> owl:Class
> owl:DataRange
> owl:Datatype
> owl:DatatypeProperty
> owl:FunctionalDataProperty
> owl:FunctionalProperty
> owl:FunctionalPropety
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
> owl:ObjectProperty
> owl:Ontology
> owl:Restriction
> owl:SymmetricProperty
> owl:TransitiveProperty
> owl:allValuesFrom
> owl:cardinality
> owl:complementOf
> owl:differentFrom
> owl:disjointWith
> owl:equivalentClass
> owl:equivalentProperty
> owl:hasValue
> owl:imports
> owl:intersectionOf
> owl:inverseOf
> owl:maxCardinality
> owl:minCardinality
> owl:onProperty
> owl:oneOf
> owl:sameAs
> owl:someValuesFrom
> owl:unionOf
> 
> which I just generated using a few simple Unix tools?  I don't think
> that any of these are syntactic sugar.  (Note that the above list
> exposes what is almost certainly a typo in the RDF Mapping document).
> 
> By the way, doing the same on OWL S&AS results in 
> 
> owl:AllDifferent
> owl:AnnotationProperty
> owl:Class
> owl:DataRange
> owl:DatatypeProperty
> owl:DeprecatedClass
> owl:DeprecatedProperty
> owl:FunctionalProperty
> owl:IndividualProperty
> owl:InverseFunctionalProperty
> owl:Nothing
> owl:ObjectProperty
> owl:Ontology
> owl:OntologyProperty
> owl:Restriction
> owl:Symmetric
> owl:SymmetricProperty
> owl:Thing
> owl:TransitiveProperty
> owl:allValuesFrom
> owl:backwardCompatibleWith
> owl:cardinality
> owl:complementOf
> owl:differentFrom
> owl:disjointWith
> owl:distinctMembers
> owl:equivalentClass
> owl:equivalentProperty
> owl:equivalentTo
> owl:hasValue
> owl:imports
> owl:incompatibleWith
> owl:intersectionOf
> owl:inverseOf
> owl:maxCardinality
> owl:minCardinality
> owl:onProperty
> owl:oneOf
> owl:priorVersion
> owl:sameAs
> owl:sameIndividualAs
> owl:someValuesFrom
> owl:unionOf
> owl:versionInfo
> 
> 
> I'll work up an analysis of the difference shortly.
> 
> > As far as I can tell from the  
> > current document, most of my existing OWL would be no longer DL,  
> > since it lacks type information, 
> 
> Well, if your OWL is in RDF form and it is missing typing, then it is
> not in OWL DL.  
> 
> > and there'd be a lot of new  
> > vocabulary items to learn to fix it -- but I can't really evaluate  
> > this because it is so difficult to map from the new syntax to the  
> > old.  
> 
> According to the RDF Mapping document "The RDF syntax of OWL 1.1 is
> backwards-compatible with OWL DL, this is, every OWL DL ontology in RDF
> is a valid OWL 1.1 ontology", so the mapping apparently isn't that
> difficult.  (I don't know whether I believe this claim.)
> 
> > There are 10s of thousands of OWL documents out in the world,  
> > I'd like to try to figure out the effort to migrate and this would help
> 
> >    Could this be done automagically?  Would a "convert to OWL11"  
> > program be possible - again, this is because I'm confused for a lot  
> > of these predicates as to whether they are necessary or just useful  
> > to implementors (but ignorable my many users).
> >   Another thing that would help, apparently several of the reasoners  
> > (Pellet, Fact+, etc.) now handle OWL11 - do any of the editors?  
> 
> Protege, for sure.
> 
> > Does  
> > Topbraid?  Having a tool we could use to create owl11 documents would  
> > be helpful for exploring the new language -- I'm teaching an OWL  
> > course this term, would love to introduce 1.1, but frankly, I still  
> > cannot figure out a lot of it from the documents - the concepts are  
> > clear, but not the realization (in the non-technical sense of the word)
> >   -JH
> 
> peter
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 14:24:51 UTC