Re: proposal to close ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1

I have suggested a repair recently. I proposed we implement it or say  
why we can't.
The use case is RDF files that can be be profitably used if coupled  
with additional structure in an OWL file.
Importing such files without repairing the mapping issue prevents  
this because such files (those that use rdfs:class where owl:class  
would suffice) would be syntactically invalid.


-Alan

On Aug 21, 2008, at 12:17 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping  
> introduces incompatibility with OWL 1
> Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 22:13:24 -0400
>
>> I clarified in the issue description that A imports B.
>> -Alan
>>
>> On Aug 2, 2008, at 10:02 PM, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>>
>>> ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces
>>> incompatibility with OWL 1
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137
>>>
>>> Raised by: Alan Ruttenberg
>>> On product:
>>>
>>> In OWL 1 one could have Ontology A, B with
>>>
>>> A:  :foo rdf:type rdfs:Class
>>> B:  :foo rdf:type owl:Class
>>>
>>> In OWL 2, A  would be rejected as syntactically invalid because no
>>> part of the reverse mapping handles the single triple with  
>>> rdfs:Class
>>>
>>> An analogous situation arises with rdf:Property
>
> This issue has been sitting for a while with no action.
>
> I propose that this issue be closed by noting the incompatibility.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Bell Labs Research
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 August 2008 17:21:16 UTC