Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest

• From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
• Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 15:32:31 -0400 (EDT)
• To: alanruttenberg@gmail.com
• Cc: hoekstra@uva.nl, public-owl-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <20080507.153231.30066736.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest
Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 12:49:59 -0400

> On May 7, 2008, at 7:32 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 
> > It turns out that in OWL 1 the validity of RDF graphs as OWL DL
> > ontologies in RDF graph form was only determined for imports closures.
> > *This is a bad thing.* The agreed-on situation in OWL 2 is much
> > better.
> 
> 
> Which agreed-up situation are you referring to? I was unaware that this
> was a resolved issue.
> 
> -Alan

>From F2F2 minutes:

RESOLVED: Close Issue 65, Issue 68, Issue 89, and Issue 19 as resolved,
as per Boris' proposal
(http://www.w3.org/mid/000001c89659$6d8508f0$2a12220a@wolf), amended to
include AnnotationProperties in parallel to DataProperties and
ObjectProperties.

The general situation in OWL 2 dates back to the OWL 1.1 member
submission, but it had to be modified due to issues raised with respect
to duplication of vocabulary.


peter

Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 19:34:25 UTC