RE: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with roundtripping when going from functional-style syntax into RDF and back

Hello Peter,

I am not sure I understand what you mean with (1) and (2): how does round-tripping through OWL/RDF differ from roundtripping through
RDF graphs?

To make things clear, the type of roundtripping that this issue talks about is the following:

OWL Functional Syntax -> RDF graph (or OWL/RDF) -> OWL Functional Syntax

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Peter F. Patel-
> Schneider
> Sent: 23 January 2008 10:57
> To: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-94 (n-ary constucts and RDF): Problem with roundtripping when going from
> functional-style syntax into RDF and back
> 
> 
> 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 18:18:39 UTC