- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
- To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: proposal to close ISSUE-137 (rdfstypesbackward): Table 4 in RDF mapping introduces incompatibility with OWL 1 Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:13:16 -0400 > > 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*. Both the description of the issue http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137 and the previous use case http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0225.html are concerned with fixing up the importing graph. > > 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. No. If the imported ontology declares the property as an ObjectProperty, then literal values are not acceptable. > > 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. But then why does it have an owl:imports triple in it? > > 4/ import another graph that fixes up the typing > No. See 1. Yes. See http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/137 and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Aug/0225.html > -Alan peter
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:14:48 UTC