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

ACTION-93 are all OWL 1.0 ontologies representable in RDF

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:35:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <20080312.143540.178031630.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
To: public-owl-wg@w3.org

Executive Summary:  YES
Non-executive Summary:  yes, with a caveat
Actual situation: same as in OWL 1.1

Recall that an OWL 1.0 ontology has a separated vocabulary if 
1/ each URI reference in it is at most one of a class ID, a datatype ID,
   an individual ID, an individual-valued property ID, a data-valued
   property ID, an annotation property ID, an ontology property ID, or
   an ontology ID; 
2/ it doesn't use any disallowed vocabulary (e.g., owl:inverseOf,
   rdf:type) in the wrong way; and 
3/ it doesn't use the built-in names (e.g., owl:thing) in the wrong way.

In OWL 1.0 every OWL DL ontology can be expressed in the abstract syntax
and also as an RDF graph, via the transformation in
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/semantics-all.html#4.1 (which does
not depend on a separated vocabulary).  However, such RDF graphs are not
"OWL DL ontologies in RDF graph form" because these must have a
separated vocabulary.  The OWL DL and OWL Full semantics can (and likely
do) diverge on these these RDF graphs (note that Theorems 1 and 2 in
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-semantics/semantics-all.html#5.4 do not apply
to them).

The situation in OWL 1.1 as I envision it would be the same.  OWL 1.1
ontologies that do not have a separated vocabulary can be translated
into RDF graph form, but their Full semantics may (and is likely to)
diverge from their DL semantics.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2008 18:38:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:03 UTC