Re: comments on RDF mapping

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Re: comments on RDF mapping
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:22:40 +0100

[...]

> 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.

OWL S&AS already embodies this design.  Both the OWL DL "abstract"
syntax and the direct model-theoretic semantics work fine with
non-separated vocabularies.

> 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.

Actually not.   

> 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

peter

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2007 16:49:18 UTC