RIF RDF and OWL compatibility - mini review

Since I won't be at the F2F here are some comments on:

** RDF Compatibility

The RDF compatibility section reads well, I like the early text 
motivating and illustrating the approach.

Minor comment: in the examples it might be preferable to use a CURIE 
prefix (or a full URI) for things like "uncleOf" or if this is intended 
to be a relative URI then perhaps a '#' prefix.

In the definition of "conforming datatype map" the reference to RIF-BLD 
at the end of condition 3 should probably now be RIF-FLD since that's 
where rif:text is now defined.

** OWL Compatibility

Minor comment: The last paragraph of "OWL Species" claims that OWL DL 
allows punning in the abstract syntax and that this "paves the way" 
towards OWL 1.1. Perhaps true though the punning permitted in the OWL 
1.0 abstract syntax is limited relative to the OWL 1.1 proposals (does 
not include property punning).

I don't like the big difference in approach between the OWL DL and 
RDF/OWL FULL combinations. Why is the OWL DL case mapped to unary and 
binary predicates? Why not frame formulae?

I don't see how the fix up of constraining the truth valuation so that 
the frame and non-frame representations are equivalent works. In BLD 
predicates and constants are required to be disjoint so I don't see how 
the constraints like:
   It-dl( t [ rdf:type -> A] ) = IR(A)(t)
can be applied.

Either this is a pure syntactic preprocessing step (in which case case 
define it as such, instead of via semantic fix up) or you are lifting 
that restriction in the BLD semantics. In that case why not use that for 
RDF and OWL FULL as well?

I realize there may not be any good answers here but this radical 
difference is troubling on first reading.

Hewlett-Packard Limited
Registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

Received on Monday, 18 February 2008 15:28:38 UTC