- From: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 16:23:06 -0000
- To: "'Michael Schneider'" <schneid@fzi.de>
- Cc: <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hello, Yes, this is correct. Although this is not a problem in view of OWL 1.1: the typing triples are just hints for the parser on how to interpret a certain URI. If you really wanted to define terms, you should declare them. I explained this in the three e-mails that I earlier identified. Regards, Boris > -----Original Message----- > From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Michael > Schneider > Sent: 13 March 2008 15:29 > To: Boris Motik > Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: proposal to close ISSUE-102 > > Hi Boris! > > Boris Motik wrote: > > >Hello, > > > >As for your first question, note that no OWL 1.1 ontology can > >consist solely of a property: ontologies consist of axioms, so there > >is no way for an ontology to contain an entity directly. An > >ontology can contain a declaration axiom for a property. Then, the > >translation of such an ontology into RDF would generate RDF triples. > > It has been pointed out by Peter in a different mail that this topic is > already covered by ISSUE-89. What I want to add here is that I believe that > this is more than just a theoretical problem. > > Imagine there is some "lightweight" OWL-1.0-DL ontology on the SemWeb, which > defines a bag of terms in the following way: For each term only its URI and > its "syntactical category" (whether it is a class, an object property, or a > data property) is determined. But no further semantic relationships between > these terms are specified, because the ontology's author does not need/want > such restricting information. > > An example: > > ex:Person rdf:type owl:Class > ex:Homepage rdf:type owl:Class > > ex:hasAuthor rdf:type owl:ObjectPropery > ex:hasHomepage rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty > ex:knowsPerson rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty > > ex:hasGivenName rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty > ex:hasFamilyName rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty > > As far as I understand, this RDF graph will be translated into an *empty* > Functional Syntax ontology by the OWL-1.1-DL RDF-to-FunctionalSyntax > mapping. Is this correct? > > Cheers, > Michael > > -- > Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider > FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik Karlsruhe > Abtl. Information Process Engineering (IPE) > Tel : +49-721-9654-726 > Fax : +49-721-9654-727 > Email: Michael.Schneider@fzi.de > Web : http://www.fzi.de/ipe/eng/mitarbeiter.php?id=555 > > FZI Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universität Karlsruhe > Haid-und-Neu-Str. 10-14, D-76131 Karlsruhe > Tel.: +49-721-9654-0, Fax: +49-721-9654-959 > Stiftung des bürgerlichen Rechts > Az: 14-0563.1 Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe > Vorstand: Rüdiger Dillmann, Michael Flor, Jivka Ovtcharova, Rudi Studer > Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus
Received on Thursday, 13 March 2008 16:24:38 UTC