W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > August 2008

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

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:13:16 -0400
Message-Id: <4BA37ECC-CCBF-48C4-8A68-4194AA670DFE@gmail.com>
Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

On Aug 22, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

>> If there is another declaration somewhere else in the imports closure
>> that declares foo as an ObjectProperty, DatatypeProperty, or
>> AnnotationProperty, then this graph will be acceptable. That is the
>> expected use case.
> So the graph has to
> 1/ use the OWL vocabulary (owl:imports, at least)
No. Another ontology has to use owl:imports to import *it*.
> 2/ use a property in a way acceptable to OWL (e.g., only object  
> values)
Yes. But anything is acceptable because the property could be  
declared an AnnotationProperty.
> 3/ have "incorrect" typing (e.g.., rdf:Property instead of  
> owl:ObjectProperty)
Yes. The graph we are talking about was not authored for use with  
OWL. It was authored as an RDF file.
> 4/ import another graph that fixes up the typing
No. See 1.

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 13:14:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:51 UTC