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

Re: RDF features in OWL 2

From: Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:48:58 -0500
Message-ID: <b6b357670811051248ge5cbfcw543a7eb27d66a3cd@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Alan Ruttenberg" <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Cc: "Michael Schneider" <schneid@fzi.de>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Alan Ruttenberg
<alanruttenberg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:23 AM, Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de> wrote:
>> 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.?
>
> Yes, that would be my starting assumption.
>
>> 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)?
>
> I'm not sure - I was hoping someone might comment on whether there
> were problems that arise with such usage. We've already established
> that the list vocabulary is a problem.
>
> However a middle point would be to allow the use of select rdf
> properties: subject,object,predicate,member,value,_1,_2,..._n as owl
> properties, as long as they were further specialized to be object,
> data, or annotation properties, and for select classes:
> statement,container,alt,bag,seq to be used as long as they were
> further declared to be owl classes.
>
In OWL 2 Full, I think it does not make a difference to say a property
is a RDF property or an OWL object property, since they are the same.

> I suggest this as a way of having fewer rdf documents be unable to be
> coerced to OWL, realizing that the cost is perhaps further disparity
> between the entailments of OWL Full and OWL DL.
>
I agree. I *think* (correct me if I'm wrong) OWL Full is intended to
be a superset of RDF, so every legal RDF ontology should also be a OWL
2 Full ontology. The question will be how those RDF vocabulary can or
cannot be used in an OWL 2 DL ontology.

Jie

> -Alan
>
>>
>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
Jie
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~baojie
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2008 22:23:29 UTC

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