- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 00:14:07 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: OWL Working Group WG <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
Well, for instance if it sees any of the new list vocabulary or any new OWL2 vocabulary, then it isn't OWL 1. Like I said, the question to be evaluated, if others thing this is worth considering, is whether there are any ambiguous cases. Perhaps the serialization is arranged so that any OWL 2 ontology that uses rdf:list as not-syntax, includes in its mapping at least one use of replacement for rdf:list. -Alan On May 28, 2008, at 12:03 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > > > Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >> 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. > > I am not sure I understand. If a system sees an OWL ontology in RDF/ > XML or Turtle, how does it know whether an rdf:List is part of the > syntax (a la OWL1) or part of the normal set of terms as you propose? > > Ivan > >> 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 > > -- > > 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 04:14:54 UTC