Re: SWBPD note on QCRs

Ian Horrocks wrote:
> 
> 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.

Peter, Ian,

OK. The proposal in the note was the one floating around at the end of 
the OWL group, and I remembered that Peter had reservations about it, so 
that's why I checked. I will post a new proposal based on your remarks.

Guus
> 
> 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
> 
> 

-- 
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
T: +31 20 598 7739/7718; F: +31 84 712 1446
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/

Received on Sunday, 7 May 2006 14:37:52 UTC