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

Re: A proposal for ISSUE-104 (built-in vocabulary)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:30:58 +0200
Message-ID: <484FD392.3050005@w3.org>
To: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, public-owl-wg@w3.org

Bijan Parsia wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2008, at 14:16, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Ivan Herman wrote:
>>> Boris,
>>> I just want to flag an issue that may come up later in comments: on 
>>> practical sense your proposal has a downside for RDF users. Indeed, 
>>> the two major serializations formats, ie, RDF/XML and Turtle, have 
>>> syntactic shorthands for RDF Lists, and these would not be valid for 
>>> the owl version of those.
>> Actually, to be more precise: in RDF/XML there is a shorthand when 
>> rdf:next is an object property. When the list elements are literals, 
>> then the list has to be spelled out...
>> Turtle's shorthand works in all cases.
> Just out of curiosity, would you find it reasonable to reserve the rdf 
> vocab (in data) to object properties and just add an owl for 
> distinguishing data properties?

Hm. As an RDF/XML user, probably yes. As a turtle user, well, it would 
be suboptimal...

> (I'll note that we're in this pickle due to removing punning on object 
> and data properties :()

Yep.... :-(

Actually, Boris' mail did not refer to rdf:Seq/Bag/Alt and the 
corresponding rdf:_n properties. There might be users out there 
preferring those to Lists, in which case the same issue arises for 
rdf:_n. (But I am not sure at all whether we should are bout those)


> Cheers,
> Bijan.


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 Wednesday, 11 June 2008 13:31:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:41:48 UTC