- From: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>
- Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 17:33:14 +0100
- To: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Michael, As far as I know, the names are intentional. The rationale is that the range of e.g. owl11:subObjectPropertyOf is a property, whereas the range of owl11:disjointObjectProperties is a *collection* of properties (as with e.g. allDisjoint) -Rinke On 2 mrt 2008, at 15:49, OWL Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > > ISSUE-96 (OWL1.1 vocabulary names): OWL-1.1 vocabulary naming in RDF > mapping is not consistent > > http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/tracker/issues/ > > Raised by: Michael Schneider > On product: > > In the RDF mapping, we have the following URIs: > > * owl11:subObjectPropertyOf > * owl11:equivalentObjectProperty > * owl11:disjointObjectProperties > > At least the names for the 2nd URI (singular) and 3rd URI (plural) > will perhaps lead to confusion. I suggest to use names close to the > existing names in OWL-1.0: > > * keep "owl11:subObjectPropertyOf", since there is > "rdfs:subPropertyOf" > > * keep "owl11:equivalentObjectProperty", since there is > "owl:equivalentProperty" > > * change "owl11:disjointObjectProperties" to > * either "owl11:disjointObjectProperty" to match > "owl:equivalentProperty" > * or "owl11:dijointObjectPropertyWith" to match > "owl:disjointWith" for classes > > The same changes will then have to be performed for data properties, > too, of course. > > Michael Schneider > > > ----------------------------------------------- Drs. Rinke Hoekstra Email: hoekstra@uva.nl Skype: rinkehoekstra Phone: +31-20-5253499 Fax: +31-20-5253495 Web: http://www.leibnizcenter.org/users/rinke Leibniz Center for Law, Faculty of Law University of Amsterdam, PO Box 1030 1000 BA Amsterdam, The Netherlands -----------------------------------------------
Received on Sunday, 2 March 2008 16:33:23 UTC