- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 08:20:23 -0400
- To: Boris Motik <boris.motik@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Hi Boris, Could you please comment on this, as it is relevant to Action-131? Thanks, Alan On May 18, 2008, at 6:23 AM, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > As I read it, the validity is still only for imports closure. > Specifically, 4.9.3 in the syntax document: > > "In OWL 2 there is no requirement that a declaration for an entity > must physically precede the entity's usage in ontology documents; > furthermore, declarations for entities can be located in imported > ontologies and imports are allowed to be cyclic." > > and Section 3.3 of the mapping document > "The set AllDecl(O) of all declarations is computed by taking the > union of the set Decl(O), the sets Decl(O') for each ontology O' > imported (directly or indirectly) into O, and the declarations for > built-in entities from Table 2 of the OWL 2 Specification [OWL 2 > Specification]. The declarations in AllDecl(O) are checked for > typing constraints, as specified in Section 4.9.1 of the OWL 2 > Specification [OWL 2 Specification]. If the constraints are not > satisfied, the graph G is rejected as syntactically incorrect." > > However, syntax 4.9 says: "All entities apart from datatypes can, > and sometimes even must, be declared in an OWL 2 ontology." In > order that it agree with the above it should say: "All entities > apart from datatypes can, and sometimes even must, be declared in > the imports closure of an OWL 2 ontology." > > > -Alan > > On May 7, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > >> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> >> Subject: Re: Multiple ontologies in a single file: RDF vs. the rest >> >>> 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 Tuesday, 27 May 2008 12:21:05 UTC