- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 23:56:10 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
On May 27, 2008, at 11:47 PM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Wouldn't that affect backward compatibility? What would happen to > existing OWL1 ontologies serialized in RDF? The reverse mapping would have to be such that the rdf:list vocabulary was mapped to the new vocabulary for OWL 1 ontologies. The question would be whether there were any ontologies that could ambiguously be valid OWL 2 ontologies that used the rdf:list vocabulary in axioms and at the same time be owl 1 ontologies that used the list vocabulary as syntax. -Alan > > Ivan > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> I'm wondering whether we should consider removing our reliance on >> rdf:list vocabulary for the serialization of OWL and instead make >> it available for modeling in OWL. This would enable a class of RDF >> that is currently inaccessible for reasoning in OWL to be >> productively used. The downside is that we lose some the >> (relative) conciseness of using rdf:parsetype=collection in our >> RDF serializations. >> Given the choice of making the RDF more compact, versus making >> more native RDF possible to reason over using OWL, I think I'd >> lean to the latter. After all, we will have the OWL XML syntax if >> length of serialization is our primary concern. >> Thoughts? >> -Alan > > -- > > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 03:57:01 UTC