- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:04:18 +0100
- To: "Mike Smith" <msmith@clarkparsia.com>
- Cc: "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A0F98025@judith.fzi.de>
[not answered to comment list, but to wg list] >-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-comments- >request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Smith >Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:53 PM >To: public-owl-comments@w3.org >Subject: Comment on RDF Mapping: variables in sequence pattern > > >While verifying some WebOnt test cases against the RDF to structural >mapping defined at [1], I noticed that there is no constraint >preventing variables within the sequence pattern from matching the >same node (see the second row of Table 3 at [1]). I found this >problematic, particularly when trying to avoid things like cyclic >lists (as in the nonconclusion ontology of [I5.5-006]). I think that this was, in OWL 1, only a testcase for the OWL Full comprehension principles to be implemented correctly (marked as "FULL extracredit" in the original test; and yes, implementing the comprehension principles would have deserved extracredit, I guess ;-)). The comprehension principles are non-normative in OWL 2 Full, so this testcase can probably be dropped. I also think that this is not an appropriate testcase for the direct semantics (it's marked as such), because I don't see that the RHS graph in that testcase is a valid OWL 2 DL ontology in RDF graph form. It is simply some dangling list expression, not being the argument list of any other language construct, so how would this be mapped to Functional Syntax at all? Apart from this, I would be pretty reluctant on having tests for stuff like avoiding circular RDF lists and the like. I would say that it is the fault of the RDF spec to allow such strange things to happen with lists, it should not be treated by OWL testcases, IMHO. >I believe that adding the constraint to the mapping document will >clarify the expected behavior. Perhaps, keeping things as they are might be sufficient. Are implementers and ontology authors/users expected to have trouble with the current state? Cheers, Michael > >-- >Mike Smith > >Clark & Parsia >http://clarkparsia.com/ > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-owl2-mapping-to-rdf- >20081202/#Mapping_from_RDF_Graphs_to_the_Structural_Specification >[I5.5-006] http://km.aifb.uni- >karlsruhe.de/projects/owltests/index.php/TestCase:WebOnt-I5.5-006 > -- 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, 7 January 2009 12:05:00 UTC