- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:19:18 -0400
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> >> >> 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. -Alan
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 18:20:03 UTC