Re: OWL 1.1 and the RDF heritage

On Tuesday 27 February 2007 23:06, Michael Schneider wrote:
> First, an RDF mapping problem. It is not immediately clear to me how to
> map a construct like the above commented subclass axiom to RDF. It
> should probably be something like (in N3):
>
>    <URIofAxiom> owl11:comment "a literal" .
>
> But what is the URI of an /axiom/? 

Yup - this is what I was trying to get at in an earlier thread. Having this 
URI of the axiom lets us do loads of funkey stuff, but currently OWL 1.1 
doesn't give us it.

> Second, a semantical problem. Say, we restrict our usage of such
> comments to only annotate /resources/. The problem is, that an RDF
> triple like
>
>    <URIofResource> owl11:comment "a literal" .
>
> cannot be really semantic-less. It is always assumed in RDF(S) that
> there is some interpretation for a given RDF triple, derived from the
> interpretations of its subject, predicate and object. 

Perhaps the way that 'no semantics' is used here is missleading. Some parts of 
the axiom have semantic meaning for the thing the axiom is about. Other parts 
have semantic meaning only for the axiom itself. The viewpoing of the OWL 1.1 
people is very much that only what it is about counts. So, if I annotate an 
axiom with a comment"my fav axiom" then it does not affect how the thing the 
axiom is refering to is classified. However, it would affect how the axiom is 
classified - it is now an instance of an axiom with a comment annotation. We 
tend to bi byopically obsessed with only the 'about' part of the axiom, which 
is probably a Bad Thing.

Matthew

Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2007 09:02:54 UTC