- From: Michael Schneider <schneid@fzi.de>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:11:27 +0200
- To: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: "Ian Horrocks" <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk>, "W3C OWL Working Group" <public-owl-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <0EF30CAA69519C4CB91D01481AEA06A00154665A@judith.fzi.de>
Hi Ivan! >-----Original Message----- >From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] >On Behalf Of Ivan Herman >Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 11:55 AM >To: Michael Schneider >Cc: Ian Horrocks; W3C OWL Working Group >Subject: Re: OWL dot OWL file > >Hi Michael > >(Background: some months ago I went through the RDF based semantics >document and I extracted the axiomatic triples based on the spec. What I >compare is what I did then and what Michael has done now) > >Everything you have there seems to be correct (no surprise...). >Actually, I had some triples missing in my version... > >My list for RL also includes facts about the datatypes that are nowhere >stated other than the xsd document. Things like: > >(xsd:anyURI, owl:disjointWith, xsd:base64Binary), >(xsd:long, owl:subClassOf, xsd:integer), Since these relationships are not represented in any of the Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, which Section 6 on Axiomatic Triples exclusively refers to, these relationships have no place in the list of axiomatic triples. I know that the description in Section 6 not even mentions datatypes and facets at all at the moment, but adding text for this is on my agenda, since the triples I have added for datatypes and facets are really represented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3. Not treating this was simply an oversight. >It may be worth thinking about adding those to owl.owl, though not >necessarily to the RDF Bases semantics document. I would prefer to have owl2.owl be a subset of the axiomatic triples, so this file is then represented at least in *some* form in one of our documents. I spend some work in the previous few days to get this relationship reasonably well (I had to adjust a few things here and there). Also note that owl2.owl is about the *OWL* vocabulary terms, not about XSD, so any reference to the datatypes seem sort of off-scope for owl2.owl (at least to me). And also, there is no precedence for having datatypes treated by owl.owl, and we only wanted to extend owl.owl "a little". >I also did a conversion of your content into RDF/XML, added a copy of >the annotation that is in the current version on the web. The result is >on: > >http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Owl2.owl > >More comments can be added to the <Ontology> part of the file but, >essentially, I believe what is there can then be published as owl.owl >when the time comes, ie, putting this issue behind us. Oh, I also just created a page... I want to defer the RDF/XML production till the end, so let's go on with my page, which also now contains new information. >Cheers > >Ivan Cheers, Michael > >Michael Schneider wrote: >> Hi again! >> >> To complete my proposal from earlier this day, I have now added to the >> RDF-Based Semantics my proposal for the list of axiomatic triples, >which I >> have talked about in the last TC: >> >> >> <http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/RDF- >Based_Semantics#List_of_Axiomatic_Tripl >> es> >> >> The first two "blocks" on "CLASSES" and "PROPERTIES" are exactly what >I have >> earlier proposed as the content of the owl2.owl ontology. It covers >all the >> OWL 2 classes and properties, and in addition the four annotation >properties >> from RDFS. So, by this means, owl2.owl would be represented in one of >our >> OWL 2 documents, and would have the same state as in OWL 1: There, it >was >> /informative/ and was contained in an appendix (in the Reference >document). >> The nice thing here is that it perfectly matches the given place in >the >> RDF-Based Semantics, it's not simply an "add on". >> >> In addition, there are three further blocks on "DATATYPES", "FACETS" >and on >> "ADDITIONAL AXIOMATIC TRIPLES FOR RDF AND RDFS", which I only consider >to be >> of relevance for that section on "Axiomatic Triples" in the RDF-Based >> Semantics. The third block covers all the 30+ mandatory datatypes of >OWL 2. >> The fourth block covers the facets (as datatype properties). The >triples in >> these two blocks correspond to what's written in the texts of Section >5.2 >> and 5.3 of the RDF-Based Semantics, respectively. The fifth block >contains >> the triples that make several OWL terms equivalent to terms from >RDF(S): >> e.g. owl:ObjectProperty is equivalent to rdf:Property in the OWL 2 >RDF-Based >> Semantics. >> >> @Ivan: Can you please have a closer look to this list, maybe checking >with >> what's in your implementation? I could do this myself, but it's better >to >> have a second pair of eyes on this large list. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> -- >> Dipl.-Inform. Michael Schneider >> Research Scientist, Dept. Information Process Engineering (IPE) >> Tel : +49-721-9654-726 >> Fax : +49-721-9654-727 >> Email: michael.schneider@fzi.de >> WWW : http://www.fzi.de/michael.schneider >> >======================================================================= >> 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, RP Karlsruhe >> Vorstand: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rüdiger Dillmann, Dipl. Wi.-Ing. Michael >Flor, >> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Wolffried Stucky, Prof. Dr. Rudi Studer >> Vorsitzender des Kuratoriums: Ministerialdirigent Günther Leßnerkraus >> >======================================================================= >> > >-- > >Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 10:12:08 UTC