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

On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> From: Alan Ruttenberg <>
>> Document at ex:ontology:
>> 	ex:foo rdf:type rdf:Property
>> 	ex:subject ex:foo ex:object
>> Document at ex:cleanup
>> Ontology(ex:cleanup
>>      Import(ex:ontology)	
>>      Declaration(ObjectProperty(ex:foo))
>> Would the reverse mapping, after the change, result in there being an
>> error when ex:cleanup is parsed (and hence ex:ontology is parsed?).
>> My understanding is that without the change ex:ontology would be
>> syntactically invalid, but if ex:ontology was the single triple
>> Document at ex:ontology:
>> 	ex:subject ex:foo ex:object
>> it would be valid.
>> -Alan
> I don't understand what you want to do.
> Do you want to say that ex:ontology is a valid OWL 2 DL ontology?  It
> isn't, and it isn't a valid OWL 1 DL ontology in RDF graph form  
> either,
> so there is no backward compatibility issue.

I want to know if an OWL tool that implements the specification will  
load ex:cleanup, and therefore ex:ontology, will result in an OWL 2  
DL ontology or not (e.g. by there being an issue with syntax).
In OWL 1, the triples that formed the import closure

ex:foo rdf:type rdf:Property
ex:subject ex:foo ex:object
ex:foo rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty
ex:cleanup rdf:type owl:Ontology
ex:cleanup owl:imports ex:ontology

would be a valid OWL 1 DL ontology in RDF graph form

In OWL 2 the reverse mapping introduces something new compared to OWL  
1 by virtue of, for the most part, the reverse mapping considering  
parsing and determining syntactic validity of each document separately.

I want to ensure that cases such as the above, where validity was  
checked on the imports closure, don't become invalid in OWL 2.


Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 18:20:03 UTC