W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > September 2005

Re: new draft of n-ary relations note

From: <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 01:21:23 +0200
To: noy@stanford.edu, helen.chen@agfa.com
Cc: swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF1BE5A34E.3BEE4149-ONC1257076.00795221-C1257076.00804199@agfa.com>

Very good note!

The pointer you asked might be

4.2. Definition of OWL DL and OWL Lite Ontologies in RDF Graph Form

When considering OWL Lite and DL ontologies in RDF graph form,
care must be taken to prevent the use of certain vocabulary as
OWL classes, properties, or individuals. If this is not done
the built-in definitions or use of this vocabulary (in the RDF
or OWL specification) would augment the information in the OWL
ontology. Only some of the RDF vocabulary fits in this category,
as some of the RDF vocabulary, such as rdf:subject, is given
little or no meaning by the RDF specifications and its use does
not present problems, as long as the use is consistent with any
meaning given by the RDF specifications.

Definition: The disallowed vocabulary from RDF is rdf:type,
rdf:Property, rdf:nil, rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, ...

One minor nit in


but it is fine in
hm.. well, with cwm I'm seeing URI's like
and I would suggest you say
        @prefix :        <diagnosis#> .

could you give this note the benefit of your thoughts as well?


Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

Natasha Noy <noy@stanford.edu>
Sent by: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
08/09/2005 21:06

        To:     swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Jos De_Roo/AMDUS/MOR/Agfa-NV/BE/BAYER)
        Subject:        new draft of n-ary relations note

There is a new draft of the n-ary relations note available at [1].

It addresses basically all of the comments that Ralph made in his 
review [2]  (thanks a lot, Ralph, for the detailed comments!), except 
for this one:

> Pattern 2:
> 4th paragraph; suggest including links for OWL Full and OWL-DL; e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-features-20040210/#s1.3
> Is there a simple reference to cite for why using rdf:List with
> pattern 2 makes the result no longer OWL-DL?

Does anyone know a good reference indeed?

As for Guus's review [3], I've made the changes for things I 
indicated I will change right away in my reply [4]. The rest of 
Guus's comments require some answers from him to my reply.

There was also some agreement that we should put in a paragraph on 
the fact that the use of n-ary relations avoids combinatorial 
explosion made in [5] (see the thread that followed). I initially 
agreed, but when I started putting it in, I was no longer sure it was 
worth it: is the point maybe obscure enough that putting a simple 
paragraph would not explain the issue, and giving it proper treatment 
would be too much for this note? What do others think? What would be 
a good simple paragraph to put in?


[1] http://smi-web.stanford.edu/people/noy/nAryRelations/n- 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0000.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0009.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Aug/0023.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jul/0017.html
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2005 23:23:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:12 UTC