- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 05:56:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
SUMMARY: Round-tripping from the functional-style syntax through RDF/XML is not possible in general, so there is no sense in trying to make it possible in general. DETAILS: The description of ISSUE-94 talks about two kinds of round-tripping: 1/ round-tripping through OWL/RDF (whatever that is), and 2/ round-tripping through RDF graphs. What round-tripping matters? Well, it has to be round-tripping through RDF/XML (OWL/XML?). Why? Because RDF/XML is a transfer syntax for OWL. Round tripping into RDF graphs doesn't make sense at all. What OWL tool that uses the functional syntax syntax would directly care about turning an ontology into an RDF graph? However, round-tripping through RDF/XML is not possible in general because there are OWL ontologies written in the functional syntax that cannot be written in RDF/XML. As it doesn't make sense to attempt to do something impossible, we shouldn't be trying to ensure round-tripping through RDF/XML in general. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2008 11:25:52 UTC