W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > July 2008

RE: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)

From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:52:24 +0100
To: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005701c8e354$f71537a0$7212a8c0@wolf>

Hello,

Yes, some RDF Graphs will be syntactically outside the OWL-R fragment. The rules can still operate on such graphs, but this might
result in missing consequences that would be intuitively expected; in this case it can be seen as an incomplete implementation of
OWL Full. Advantages include streamlining the definition of OWL-R, making profiles in general much cleaner and easier to understand,
and obviating the need for owl:intendedProfile.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ivan Herman
> Sent: 11 July 2008 11:43
> To: Boris Motik
> Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A possible way of going forward with OWL-R unification (ISSUE-131)
> 
> Boris,
> 
> I do not see how this answers the questions I had in
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-owl-wg/2008Jul/0093.html
> 
> Isn't it correct that this approach will make some RDF Graphs formally
> incorrect OWL-R graphs (even if the rules can handle them without any
> problems)?
> 
> Ivan
> 
> Boris Motik wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here is a possible way of going forward with ISSUE-131.
> >
> > - We add to the introduction of the Profiles document a definition of what it means for an RDF
> graph G to be an instance of profile
> > P:
> >
> > "Let G be an RDF graph closed w.r.t. imports. G is a P-ontology if the triples in G can be parsed
> into an ontology in structural
> > specification that satisfies the grammar given in the profile specification for P".
> >
> > - We change Section 4 to talk only about OWL-R, and not about OWL-R DL and OWL-R Full.
> >
> > - We rename Section 4.2 to "Profile Specification".
> >
> > - We delete Section 4.3.1.
> >
> > - We rename Section 4.3.2 into Section 4.3 and call it "Reasoning in OWL-R and RDF Graphs using
> Rules".
> >
> > - In current Section 4.4, we already have a statement that, for OWL-R ontologies, describes the
> consequences that these rules
> > produce. In the end of this section, however, we would add the following sentence:
> >
> > "The rules from Section 4.3 can be applied to arbitrary RDF graphs, in which case the produced
> consequences are sound but not
> > necessarily complete."
> >
> > Please let me know how you feel about this.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 	Boris
> >
> >
> 
> --
> 
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Friday, 11 July 2008 12:54:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:05 UTC