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: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:13:29 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080822.101329.146555081.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
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
and the previous use case
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

> -Alan

Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 14:14:48 UTC

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