Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs

Hi Peter,

I'm not sure what this has to do with serialization in a particular
RDF format. Rather it has to do with us using one datatype (rdf:text)
and specifying that serializations are to be done using a different
datatype (plain literals) that happen to have equal values. This is
independent of RDF/XML.

As it stands now, it looks like if one reads in an ontology with plain
literals and immediately write it out, one gets an ontology with the
plain literals replaced by rdf:text literals.

In my implementation of the translator I had to code the replacement
somewhere and realized that it was unspecified in the translation.

-Alan

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider
<pfps@research.bell-labs.com> wrote:
> I do not think that this is an appropriate place to so specify.  The
> mapping in "Mapping to RDF Graphs" produces RDF graphs, not RDF/XML or,
> really, any particular serialization of an RDF graph, even though of
> necessity the document uses a particular syntax for RDF graphs.  It is
> up to implementations to decide what to do with the various aspects of
> rdf:text serialization.
>
> I don't think that it is even a good idea to even allude to this problem
> in "Mapping to RDF Graphs", just as it is not a good idea to even allude
> to the problems in serializing some RDF Graphs in RDF/XML in this
> document either.
>
> peter
>
>
> From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Status of OWL 2 Mapping to RDF Graphs
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:16:08 -0500
>
>> I have noticed an issue with the translation of rdf:text literals. It
>> seems to me that mapping should be where it is specified that rdf:text
>> literals get translated to plain literals.
>>
>> -Alan
>>
>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Evren Sirin <evren@clarkparsia.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Ian Horrocks
>>> <ian.horrocks@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>> Michael, Markus, Evren,
>>>>
>>>> As LC1 reviewers of Mapping to RDF Graphs can you please take a *very* quick
>>>> look at the latest version and confirm that you are OK with any minor
>>>> changes that may have occurred since the 1st Last Call and that, in your
>>>> opinion, the document is "CR-ready".
>>>
>>> I'm fine with all the changes and I think the document is CR-ready,
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Evren
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Monday, 18 May 2009 20:01:05 UTC