Comment on Formal Semantics, status of GRDDL transform

Comment on, Formal 

A small remark after the second example in section 3, namely:

The owl:intersectionOf of a singleton collection in both descriptor 
sets, although redundant, is a result of the GRDDL transformation.

triggered a question: what is _exactly_ the status of the GRDDL 
transformation? Is the GRDDL transformation normative? Or is the 
definition in this document the normative one, and the Working Group 
provides a GRDDL transformation implementing it for the good of the 
community? In other words, can I implement my own (GRDDL or otherwise) 
transformation that provides a _semantically equivalent_ but 
syntactically different graph?

There are obvious examples (order of constructions within the generated 
document) and also a bit trickier one. The note above refers to:

<owl:Class rdf:ID="descriptorset_2">
   <owl:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="Collection">
       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource=""/>
       <owl:hasValue rdf:resource=""/>

what if I generate the following OWL construction instead?

<owl:Class rdf:ID="descriptorset_2_ivan">
       <owl:onProperty rdf:resource=""/>
       <owl:hasValue rdf:resource=""/>

the generated RDF Graphs will be different (the whole construction for 
Lists will not be there) but, I believe, descriptorset_2_ivan and 
descriptorset_2 will be equivalent in the sense that the instances of 
those classes will be identical. Will I be POWDER compliant if I do that?



Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
PGP Key:

Received on Monday, 14 July 2008 14:32:27 UTC