- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 12:38:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jjc@hpl.hp.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
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