- From: Ian Horrocks <horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 12:16:30 +0100
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: schreiber@cs.vu.nl, rector@cs.man.ac.uk, Sean Bechhofer <seanb@cs.man.ac.uk>, public-swbp-wg@w3.org
On 25 Apr 2006, at 18:10, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. There isn't a current proposal, but there is an intention to produce an RDF/XML encoding for OWL 1.1, and work is already underway on this. I agree with Peter and Pat that the syntax pattern you propose would have serious drawbacks, and I imagine that we will introduce "Q" variants of the cardinality triples. lan > 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 Sunday, 7 May 2006 11:18:31 UTC