W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > November 2008

RE: RDF features in OWL 2

From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 10:23:07 +0100
Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0E06166@judith.fzi.de>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
I still don't understand it. Do you mean that one should be allowed to
treat, for example, rdf:value in the same way as every other /unreserved/
URI? So rdf:value may, for example, be declared as a class, can occur in
equivalenceClass axioms, etc.? Or should there be still constraints in OWL 2
that restrict the use of rdf:value in certain ways (currently, such
restrictions exist in the form that rdf:value cannot be used at all)?

Michael

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org]
>On Behalf Of Alan Ruttenberg
>Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:51 PM
>To: Michael Schneider
>Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>Subject: Re: RDF features in OWL 2
>
>
>Before we had rdf importing, if we were to allow the rdf vocabulary we
>might have thought it necessary to decide what sort of properties the
>various rdf properties were. We could now, instead, simply allow their
>use in owl:imported rdf documents as long as the importing document
>declares their type.
>
>That annotations are on "URI"s also makes the question of what type
>they are less acute - the annotations will be valid regardless of how
>they are typed.
>
>A specific example might be the use of some of rdf reification
>vocabulary in a certain ontology by declaring rdf:subject, object, and
>predicate to be object properties.
>
>-Alan
>
>On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
>wrote:
>> Hi Alan!
>>
>> Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>>
>>>I am wondering about whether it is wise to consider these disallowed
>>>in OWL 2 DL, and hence making any RDF that uses them unusable in OWL
>>>DL.
>>>
>>>In the light of our resolution of issues 137 and 114, should use of
>>>these vocabulary terms be allowed as long as there is sufficient
>>>additional OWL declarations to make them usable in OWL DL?
>>>
>>>-Alan
>>
>> For my interest: What do you exactly mean by this? In particular, I do
>not
>> understand how 114 and 137 come into play here.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>>On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Elisa F. Kendall
><ekendall@sandsoft.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Michael --
>>>>
>>>> That was our preliminary conclusion, but we wanted to confirm one
>last
>>>time,
>>>> "just to make sure" :).
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Elisa
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Michael Schneider wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi!
>>>>
>>>> I think Jie's question can easily be answered. Have a look in
>Section
>>>2.3 of
>>>> the Specification:
>>>>
>>>>   <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Syntax#URIs_and_Namespaces>
>>>>
>>>> All the URIs asked for have an "rdf" namespace prefix, so they are
>>>reserved
>>>> according to Table 2. And none of these URIs appear in Table 3
>>>("Reserved
>>>> Vocabulary with Special Treatment"). So the answer is "not supported
>>>in OWL
>>>> 2 DL" to all these URIs.
>>>>
>>>> The related (now closed) issue is ISSUE-104 ("dissallowed
>>>vocabulary").
>>>>
>>>> Further, there is no (explicit semantic) relationship between the
>>>original
>>>> RDF Reification ("rdf:Statement") and the new annotation-reification
>>>> ("owl:Axiom") vocabulary. We have introduced the latter as a
>>>resolution for
>>>> ISSUE-67 ("reification for axiom annotation").
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-
>>>request@w3.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Ian Horrocks
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 2:24 PM
>>>> To: Jie Bao
>>>> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
>>>> Subject: Re: RDF features in OWL 2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the slow reply -- still catching up after the F2F and
>ISWC.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking for myself, I don't see any point in including these
>>>> features in the QR.
>>>>
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Oct 2008, at 01:12, Jie Bao wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi All
>>>>
>>>> I'm not quite sure whether the following RDF features are still
>>>> supported in OWL 2
>>>>
>>>> * complex values using rdf:value, e.g.
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-primer-20040210/#example21
>>>> * RDF containers
>>>> * RDF reification (in particular, I'm not sure about its
>relationship
>>>> to owl:Axiom reification)
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking for decisions on whether to include them in the quick
>>>> reference. I didn't see their presence in any of the existing OWL 2
>>>> documents. Thanks in advance.
>>>>
>>>> Jie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Wednesday, 5 November 2008 09:24:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC