Re: Issue-104

From: Alan Ruttenberg <>
Subject: Issue-104
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:58:49 -0400

> I am confused as to it's status. The issue is whether there is a
> disallowed vocabulary. The notes have Michael saying there is, and I an
> thinks there is. This would suggest that closing the issue means saying
> that there is a disallowed vocabulary and a pointer to the appropriate
> place in the spec. However, I don't understand Peter's comment
> suggesting a break in backwards compatibility in this light.
>   I will review the current spec to find what Michael is referring
> to. However a summary of current understand so as to verify we're
> (including me) are all on the same page would help if someone happens to
> have the time to write.
> -Alan

A very quick and easy find on OWL S&AS results in:

Definition: The disallowed vocabulary from RDF is rdf:type,
rdf:Property, rdf:nil, rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdfs:domain,
rdfs:range, rdfs:Resource, rdfs:Datatype, rdfs:Class, rdfs:subClassOf,
rdfs:subPropertyOf, rdfs:member, rdfs:Container and
rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty. The disallowed vocabulary from OWL is
owl:AllDifferent, owl:allValuesFrom, owl:AnnotationProperty,
owl:cardinality, owl:Class, owl:complementOf, owl:DataRange,
owl:DatatypeProperty, owl:DeprecatedClass, owl:DeprecatedProperty,
owl:differentFrom, owl:disjointWith, owl:distinctMembers,
owl:equivalentClass, owl:equivalentProperty, owl:FunctionalProperty,
owl:hasValue, owl:intersectionOf, owl:InverseFunctionalProperty,
owl:inverseOf, owl:maxCardinality, owl:minCardinality,
owl:ObjectProperty, owl:oneOf, owl:onProperty, owl:Ontology,
owl:OntologyProperty, owl:Restriction, owl:sameAs, owl:someValuesFrom,
owl:SymmetricProperty, owl:TransitiveProperty, and owl:unionOf. The
disallowed vocabulary is the union of the disallowed vocabulary from RDF
and the disallowed vocabulary from OWL.  

The change would be from listing the disallowed vocabulary in the RDF,
RDFS, XSD, and OWL vocabulary spaces and allowing all other to
effectively listing the allowed vocabulary from these spaces and
disallowing all other.  So, for example, owl:class was allowed in OWL 1
but would not be allowed under this proposal.


Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 17:23:23 UTC