- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:10:12 -0400 (EDT)
- To: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
- Cc: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, rector@cs.man.ac.uk, Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>
From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl> Subject: SWBPD note on QCRs Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:51:39 +0200 > Peter, Ian, > > In the SW Best Practices group Alan Rector and I have been working on a > note on QCRs, with the intention of providing guidance for ontology > engineers. The note is mainly based on the work-arounds and proposals we > developed during the WebOnt discussions about this. The current draft > [1] has been lying around for a year or so (there were some formatting > updates, but nothing major) and we would like to finish this now. > > Patterns 1 & 2 in [1] are work-arounds for OWL as it is. I want to draw > your attention to pattern 3, a "non-endorsed OWL extension", which > actually comes from the WebOnt resolution on QCRs [2, end of the email]. > > I was looking at OWL 1.1 documents [3, 4] to see what kind of syntax you > propose. I found the abstract syntax, but no mapping to RDF/XML triples. > I have two questions: > - Is there a proposal for a OWL 1.1 RDF/XML representation of QCRs? There is a proposal for an XML dialect for OWL 1.1 forthcoming, based on work by the DIG working group (http://homepages.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~seanb/dig/). See the DIG XML Schema http://homepages.cs.manchester.ac.uk/~seanb/dig/schema.xsd There is no current proposal for an RDF/XML encoding of OWL 1.1. To just have an RDF/XML syntax for OWL 1.1 is not hard, but this alone does not make a same-syntax extension of RDF(S). To do a same-syntax extension "right" requires a considerable amount of work, if it is even possible. > - What do you think of the proposed RDF/XML syntax in pattern 3 of [1]? > Comments and/or proposals for alternatives would be very much > appreciated. This syntax would have a non-monotonic meaning considered as a same-syntax extension of RDF(S), which makes it problematic. A monotonic reading requires different tags, at least for owl:cardinality and owl:maxCardinality. > Thanks. > > Best, > Guus > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/OEP/QCR/ > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003May/0072.html > [3] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/overview.html > [4] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/syntax.html Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2006 17:11:25 UTC